The War On Iraq has started.

[kyleb]

i am under the impression that what we have been gearing up to do is in violation of international law, is that not the case or is it just that we are declaring the law irrelevant?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If a proposed resolution is vetoed by a pernament member of the UN security council it becomes null and void. In effect it never existed so te qustion of legaility is somewhat irrelevant.

That was my assumption. Which is why I don't really understand the position of "we shouldn't call for a vote, because we won't get it."

I am not convinced of any reason, other than purely political, that a vote shouldn't be called.

 

[duncan36]

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support THEM AND OUR LEADERS at times like these.

We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed.

This kind of thinking went out with the Roman Empire John. Anytime I hear this type of 2nd grade logic, I point to Israel to show these warmongers how well this type of 'hit back' logic is working for them.

 

[John Reynolds]

This kind of thinking went out with the Roman Empire John. Anytime I hear this type of 2nd grade logic, I point to Israel to show these warmongers how well this type of 'hit back' logic is working for them.

I didn't mean that I endorsed the email. I should've pointed this out in my post, but I just thought it interesting that the email I quoted is being heavily circulated in US military channels.

That said, I do tend to somewhat agree that it's supremely naive of "peace protesters" to get out and cry for peace without offering methods or alternatives for achieving it. It's very easy to say you want peace. Doesn't mean the person or people standing on the other side of the fence do.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Anytime I hear this type of 2nd grade logic, I point to Israel to show these warmongers how well this type of 'hit back' logic is working for them.

What specifically do you point out...I would point out the fact Israel still actually exists and hasn't receded into the sea...

 

[epicstruggle]

authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.

were that is the case it leaves us in that position precisely, but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders, and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.

kyleb, could you please inform me where your from? Id like to know what type of government you grew up in. You might have mentioned where you lived but I hope you can repeat it.

The reason I as is that you do not know the type of government the United States of America has. For many decades schools in the US have done a bad job of explaining the real difference between a democratic and a republic form of government. I hope to educate/inform you of the differences. I hope you also ponder the consequences/implications of each type of government.

First let me quote you from 2 of the most important documents ever written by man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Article. IV.
...
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Second, Id like to tell you that the United States of America has a Republic for of government. Please see above for sources. Why is this important. Ill tell you why, there are major differences between what a government can and cannot do depending on its type. Let me explain the differences.

-democracy
In a democracy the "majority rules" - and the minority loses. A hypothetical example can demonstrate the idea. Pretend that you're a land owner, and that I would like to buy some of your property. You don't want to sell this property because it's been in your family for several generations. In a democracy, I could gather a dozen other land owners together, proposing that we divide your land between us. We will allow you to vote on the proposition, because this IS a democracy after all -- and you will lose thirteen to one. That's a democracy!

-republic
In a republic, nothing can outvote your individual rights! They are unalienable. If the land belongs to you it doesn't matter if I have a hundred friends, a thousand friends, or a hundred thousand friends! YOUR PROPERTY IS YOUR PROPERTY! It is the government's fiduciary responsibility to protect your rights. If you are in doubt, read your copy of the Declaration of Independence. Right after "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" it says, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

one reason why democracy is not an ideal form of government:
Every day more and more people go on welfare. The government gives them money which it has taken from you in taxes. Since a majority of people in this country already get some kind of aid from the government, do they have the right to vote for more of your paycheck? If so, how much can they take? Fifty percent? Seventy five percent? One hundred percent? This is democracy in action. At this point, wouldn't it be easier for people who were still working to just go on welfare? If everybody is on welfare, there wouldn't be anyone left to tax, and the system would collapse.
(from http://www.badnarik.org/info/republic.html)
please see this page also for more info:
http://w3f.com/patriots/democracy.html

Now why does this matter. Popular opinion should matter very little to elected officials. However, since they need to get elected they sometimes pander to polls to get elected. Now if you have a leader like President Bush, who would rather do his job and not pay attention to what polls say, then you have a real leader. There have been many situations where public opinion outweighed the correct thing to do, ie slavery, suffarage, wars.

Leaders of this country should do things based on the best interests of its people and not what the public thinks should be done.

I might add more later. I have to go have dinner.
ps im posting this in one other thread.

later,

 

[RussSchultz]

Egad, epic, that's some twisted view of the differences between a republic and a democracy.

They're essentially one in the same, except a republic is a government by representatives for a larger population, whereas a true democracy is 1 man 1 vote.

The tyrrany of the majority is still a problem in either form of government, which is why the framers of the US constitution provided for the bill of rights.

 

[Natoma]

Why would Blair not want another vote? (other than avoiding the embarrassment). Or, more to the point, why would specifically Blair not want another vote?

Because Blair faces much harsher criticism in Britain than Bush does in the U.S. with regard to UN support. In other words, while it can be politcially embarassing both for Bush and Blair, Bush still has the backing of the majority of Americans, regardless of a U.N. vote. Whereas I believe the UK sentiment is mostly "if the UN says OK, then OK...if not, then it's not OK."

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this is an erroneous statement. In practically every poll to date from various sources, roughly 60-70% of the American populace do *not* want a war without UN support. That is most certainly not a majority of Americans, regardless of UN Vote.

I think you probably meant to say that a majority of Americans would support a war with UN backing. If not, I hope I've corrected that little detail.

p.s.: Poll info from CNN, Time, Newsweek, and Businessweek.

 

[epicstruggle]

Egad, epic, that's some twisted view of the differences between a republic and a democracy.

They're essentially one in the same, except a republic is a government by representatives for a larger population, whereas a true democracy is 1 man 1 vote.

The tyrrany of the majority is still a problem in either form of government, which is why the framers of the US constitution provided for the bill of rights.

How did you not see the difference. In a republic your rights can not be taken away. PERIOD. In a democracy you can get enough people to do what ever the hell they want. One reason used in the movement to abolish slavery was that even slaves have rights that cannot be taken away. It took a long time to do abolish it but it was worth it.

Please read up on those links provided, maybe they can do a better job explaining the difference.

later,

 

[Himself]

I wonder if he'll be wearing a falsie small mustache in a nod to his biggest hero?

Bush would look stupid like that.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this is an erroneous statement. In practically every poll to date from various sources, roughly 60-70% of the American populace do *not* want a war without UN support. That is most certainly not a majority of Americans, regardless of UN Vote.

From CBS News
NEW YORK, March 17, 2003

Most Americans support action against Iraq even without a U.N. authorization, though support drops without U.N. support for a second resolution.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 1,049 adults, interviewed by telephone March 15-16, 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/opinion/polls/main544258.shtml
Poll: Most Back War With Or Without U.N
Overall
67%
If Security Council does not vote at all
60%
If Security Council votes "No"
54%

Disapprove:

Overall
29%
If Security Council does not vote at all
36%
If Security Council votes "No"
40%

 

[Natoma]

You know, we're all "happy and giddy" at the thought of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but why isn't anyone talking about how much it's going to cost us in terms of dollars and cents?

Sure, it's idealistic to say "well the costs of removing that brutal dictator far outweigh the costs to our economy." But that is not how the real world works. We have a confluence of many different economically hostile factors coming together in the next 5-10 years that could potentially decimate our economy.

1) The continued rebuilding of Afghanistan, which goes very poorly to date. Link

2) The removal of Saddam Hussein (est. cost: $100 Billion --> $200 Billion)

3) The rebuilding of Iraq (est. cost: $200 Billion --> $1 Trillion over the next decade), which includes infrastructure (oil industry, transportation, seaports, etc)

4) Bush Tax Cut (est. cost: $600 Billion --> $2 Trillion over the next decade in lost revenue to the government)

5) The retirement of the baby boomers.

We're already $300 Billion in deficit right now. That's 3% of our economy. When you take into account everything that we need to do over the next 10-20 years, the costs begin to skyrocket.

And what is this administrations excuse for not even giving any estimates? "Oh, well we're really not sure exactly how much things will cost until the shooting starts."

Please..

And some people are also saying that the costs of rebuilding Iraq will be covered by their Oil deposits. But considering that it will take roughly $50 --> $100 Billion over the next 10 years to bring their Oil output back up to pre-1991 gulf war levels, I seriously doubt we'll be able to collect on our IOUs for a very long time.

In the interim, because of this administration's generally unilaterist tack on diplomacy, we, i.e. the american tax payer, will no doubt end up having to shoulder the brunt of the cost.

This while we want a prescription drug benefit, shored up social security, $670 Billion Tax cut, on top of the $1.3 Trillion Tax cut from 2001, shored up Medicare, Homeland Security funding to shore up our defenses, etc etc etc. Where is the money coming from???

In the current budget, the states received practically no federal funding to actually implement the policies for Homeland Security, yet this administration is cutting taxes by $670 Billion? Why can't we take $100 Billion or so and use it to increase our border patrols and inspections in our ports?

Why can't we use some of that money to improve our *still* lax airport security? We don't even have a national response yet for the event of a chemical or biological attack, let alone nuclear. The list goes on and on and on.

This is the first time in the history of the United States that we have attempted so many things, and at the same time gave a *huge* tax cut. Basically we're trying to save the world and ourselves, while asking no sacrifices from anyone. (sorry russ. )

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this is an erroneous statement. In practically every poll to date from various sources, roughly 60-70% of the American populace do *not* want a war without UN support. That is most certainly not a majority of Americans, regardless of UN Vote.

From CBS News
NEW YORK, March 17, 2003

Most Americans support action against Iraq even without a U.N. authorization, though support drops without U.N. support for a second resolution.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 1,049 adults, interviewed by telephone March 15-16, 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/opinion/polls/main544258.shtml
Poll: Most Back War With Or Without U.N
Overall
67%
If Security Council does not vote at all
60%
If Security Council votes "No"
54%

Disapprove:

Overall
29%
If Security Council does not vote at all
36%
If Security Council votes "No"
40%

Link one here

But Blair emerges as the pivotal figure not because of the international equation — in which the U.S. and Britain remain fairly isolated in pushing for military action — but because the American electorate does not share Bush's impatience, and has misgivings about going to war without UN backing. Most polls find that an overwhelming majority of Americans would back a UN-authorized war, fewer than 40 percent would support the U.S. acting without UN backing.

Granted this poll was from late January. lol. I hadn't seen that poll from a couple of days ago.

However, I did some searching on that particular one and I came up with this link as well

Here

The public said it would consider the war a success if Iraq is disarmed and Saddam removed, even if more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers are killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed.


A majority said they would not consider the war a success if:


_The war costs more than $100 billion.


_Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops.


_Iraq returns to dictatorship after the war.


_There are more terrorist attacks on the United States


_Israel is attacked and the Mideast becomes more unstable.

1) No wonder the Bush Administration is not willing to say how much this war, and the subsequent rebuilding effort, will cost.

2) If Saddam does have WMDs, you can bet he's going to use them against our troops.

3) I seriously doubt that Iraq would become a dictatorship again after this war, but if that's what it seems to take to corral all of the different sections of Iraq and keep it from imploding, I wouldn't put it past our government to put in place an american "figurehead" dictator.

4) I have no doubt that we're probably going to get attacked after we begin shooting in Iraq. And frankly after living through one attack in NYC, you can most certainly wonder why this particular facet has me very worried.

5) Israel being attacked is pretty much a given if/when we go to war against Saddam. If he's got the missiles and the WMDs, you can bet he's going to unleash it on Israel.

By a 2-1 margin, Americans said the United States needs to preserve the American tradition of not launching attacks on other countries unless it is attacked, rather than taking military action against countries before they can threaten or strike this country.

Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and respected abroad, but a majority, 55 percent, said they feel the United States is less liked and respected by people in other countries than a year ago.

The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq, even without the support of the United Nations Security Council. Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said the United States should do that only with full support of the Security Council; 13 percent said the United States should not take military action even if the Security Council agrees.

So it appears that things have become much closer in recent times, but it is still a pretty high proportion of the population that either doesn't want war at all, or doesn't want war without UN backing.

You know it's kind of sad. My mom called me up a few minutes ago and we were talking about the war. She asked me if I was scared about potentially having to go, and I told her not at all. Why? Because of the dumbass military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I would most certainly tell them that I'm gay and in fact I'd show up with my partner, hand in hand.

If the military doesn't want me or "my kind" in times of peace, they can certainly go to hell when they need bodies to fill their trenches on the front lines.

[EDIT]Man talk about a segue.. [/EDIT]

 

[Silent_One]

1) No wonder the Bush Administration is not willing to say how much this war, and the subsequent rebuilding effort, will cost.

2) If Saddam does have WMDs, you can bet he's going to use them against our troops.

3) I seriously doubt that Iraq would become a dictatorship again after this war, but if that's what it seems to take to corral all of the different sections of Iraq and keep it from imploding, I wouldn't put it past our government to put in place an american "figurehead" dictator.

4) I have no doubt that we're probably going to get attacked after we begin shooting in Iraq. And frankly after living through one attack in NYC, you can most certainly wonder why this particular facet has me very worried.

5) Israel being attacked is pretty much a given if/when we go to war against Saddam. If he's got the missiles and the WMDs, you can bet he's going to unleash it on Israel.

1.) I don't think anybody has a true figure how much this is going to cost (No matter how much Bush says it will cost he'll be critised and told the amount is incorrect) I agree with you its going to cost a lot!

2.) Agreed.

3.) Then we become the new "Saddam".

4.) I don't know. We'll probably be attacked anyway.

5.) Hopefully if we rush him fast enough he won't get a chance.

got to go and listen to a speech.......!

 

[Crusher]

This while we want a prescription drug benefit, shored up social security, $670 Billion Tax cut, on top of the $1.3 Trillion Tax cut from 2001, shored up Medicare, Homeland Security funding to shore up our defenses, etc etc etc. Where is the money coming from???

Not me, last year I got back more in my return than I paid in taxes =) So in one sense, I'm costing the government money and contributing to the deficit. But then again, you could also say that I saved the government money, since although I was unemployed for 7 months last year, I never received any unemployment payments. So really, it depends on how you look at it.

Also, if I choose to look at it from a self-centered point of view, the bump in the stock market from the news of impending war today raised the value of my 401k plan, which had been slowly diminishing ever since I started it 2 years ago. And hopefully the tax cuts will increase my business. Plus, if social security and medicare go bankrupt sooner, it would also be beneficial to me, as I won't have to pay into them anymore, with little to no chance of ever benefiting from them. This isn't too bad of a situation from my perspective, again if I choose to take a selfish look at the situation. And I'm not exactly a member of the top 10% of society that everyone thinks are the only people that ever benefit from having Republicans in office. Elderly people would probably view the situation differently, but not necessarily unequally. A retired person depending on medicare and social security would probably want to keep those programs around at all costs, while at the same time they could care less if my 401k improves, or my business increases, or how much more money I'll have to pay to the government to keep the programs going.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, most things appear bad if you choose to look at them from only one perspective.

 

[John Reynolds]

And so the gauntlet is thrown. What is this "broad coalition" of nations working with us that Bush refers to, though?

Me wonders how long before we see a poll in this forum that goes something like: Will Saddam abdicate, Yes, No.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this is an erroneous statement. In practically every poll to date from various sources, roughly 60-70% of the American populace do *not* want a war without UN support.

As has been pointed out, you are te one making erroneous statements.

I think you probably meant to say that a majority of Americans would support a war with UN backing. If not, I hope I've corrected that little detail.

No, as I said, the number of Americans supporting a war would certainly increase with UN backing. (Which is no surprise.) However, the recent polls I've seen still have the majority supporting a war even without UN backing.

Certainly nothing like 60-70% disapproval that you claim.

 

[RussSchultz]

Sorry, Epic. Just because that guy is a libertarian candidate, doesn't make him any more correct.

In the US, we have rights because of the constitution, not because we're a republic.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You know, we're all "happy and giddy" at the thought of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but why isn't anyone talking about how much it's going to cost us in terms of dollars and cents?

First of all, I would be much more happy and Giddy if we didn't have to remove him, and he just left.

Second, I'm sure it will cost "a lot."

Sure, it's idealistic to say "well the costs of removing that brutal dictator far outweigh the costs to our economy." But that is not how the real world works.

Yeah, sort of like "well, it would be great if the working folks could just pay for everyone else on welfare and unemployement regardless of how long they've been on it or their ability to work themselves", but that's not the way the world works either.

We have a confluence of many different economically hostile factors coming together in the next 5-10 years that could potentially decimate our economy.

And we can paint all kinds of doomsday pictures of economically hostile factors coming to a head based on unchecked terrorism too. Speaking strictly in terms of economics, It's a matter of prioritizing and investing. How much more could it cost our economy if we don't invest the $$ now to oust Sadam.

How much would it have cost the Allies to oust Hitler, rather than going to World War II?

Bottom line is, yes, we acknlowledge a large cost. Again, be believe it is a sound investment.

This while we want a prescription drug benefit...[/qupte]

Persononally, I DON'T want a government sponsored persectiption drug benefit. I know that's been promised by the President, though I personally don't care if it ever comes to fruition.

shored up social security...

Which he's trying to do, much to the dismay of the leftists...who's idea of shored up social security means less payout (higher taxes on SS payments) and more pay-in.

$670 Billion Tax cut, on top of the $1.3 Trillion Tax cut from 2001,

The same tax cut, just faster...

shored up Medicare, Homeland Security funding to shore up our defenses, etc etc etc. Where is the money coming from???

The taxpayers, of course. The bulk of which is the "wealthiest 5%" of course which we like to crucify for getting "the bulk" of things like tax cuts. And the faster the economy turns around (hint, see stock market since the news of impending war has broken), the more tax revenues we'll get making it eassier to pay.

And no, I'm not saying that "war is good" for the economy, so lets fight a war. The "uncertainty" surrounding the prospect of war has held back the economy (specifically, the stock market) to a large degree. Getting the war over with, and having Sadam out of there, is one key to getting back on track.

No one is arguing that this won't cost money, and no one is being hypocritical about it (Yes to war, no for more funds going to dept of defense).

We can of course, just degrade this into a "where should the money be spent as a priority", but won't we just get into the same old tired "left vs. right" arguments?

In the current budget, the states received practically no federal funding to actually implement the policies for Homeland Security, yet this administration is cutting taxes by $670 Billion? Why can't we take $100 Billion or so and use it to increase our border patrols and inspections in our ports?

Hey, get yourself elected to office, and you can approprate the money as you see fit.

Why can't we use some of that money to improve our *still* lax airport security? We don't even have a national response yet for the event of a chemical or biological attack, let alone nuclear. The list goes on and on and on.

What are you worried about airport security for? The democrats got their wish of federalizing airport security...."we're safe now." (Another law I'm not happy about Bush signing).

This is the first time in the history of the United States that we have attempted so many things, and at the same time gave a *huge* tax cut. Basically we're trying to save the world and ourselves, while asking no sacrifices from anyone. (sorry russ. )

Oh ye of little faith...

 

[DemoCoder]

But certainly a republic is more resistant to tyranny than a direct democracy. The bicameral legislature, for one, has several gating mechanisms that "slows down" radical change and makes things far more deliberative. Then we have non-elected judges who aren't swayed by political campaigns and polls to review new legislation and make sure it is consistent with the constitution.


If new constitutional amendments could be proposed and voted on like referendums, judges elected directly by the people, legislation voted in electronically like instant opinion polls, we would quickly devolve into the worst form of tyranny, and worse, the actual legal playing field would change so rapidly, it would make it hard for citizens to plan for the future.

The republic makes it *hard to change laws*, it introduces grid-lock, and grid lock is a good thing IMHO when it comes to something as powerful as government, which is the only organization that has the legitimate right to initiate force against you based on the whims of others.

The more important the law, the more deliberative I want the process to be, and I want experts who make it their daily activity for years to study the costs and benefits of such legislation, *especially* those that are designed to change regulation, taxes, et al (rather than alter appropriations).

If this country were a direct democracy, I would be on the first plane outta here. Frankly, I'd rather live in China, where the political system is corrupt, but atleast the sheep can't vote to eat you.