The War On Iraq has started.

[Natoma]

Oh god. I just ate half a pint of Butter Pecan while writing that post. I'm such a softie for that ice cream.. yum......

 

[kyleb]

You continually side-step my assertion that we are already at war, and that terrorism changes the very nature of the defintion of war.

i was by no means trying to sidestep, but sence you do not realize this i will state it clearly; i dissagree with your assertion directly.

Bush said essentially the same exact thing in his speech tonight. (And he's said it before) Or didn't you listen to the address? Or were you too busy mumbling under your breath and shaking your head "in sorrow for the monster that our country has become" at every statement without actually listenting to it?

yes i lissened to it, and i take strong offence at the way you atempt to belittle my postion with the false implacations in your questioning.

They put them down, but didn't get rid of them, as per the agreement they signed precisely so we wouldn't have to do what we're about to do 12 years later.

but no one "has" to do anything, you are using your free will wether you chose to admit it or not; and useing it to jusitfy killing at that.

Then you don't see any harm in violating agreed terms of cease fire. You have no respect for actual peace then.

it is you that is argueing in support of war so you are in no postion to lecture me on respect for peace.

Full peace was never restored.

but the war was stoped, and i wish you might learn to respect the value of that and the lives of those who died to being upon that end.

You need to look no further than Sadam to blame for a lack of "counterproductiveness" in ALL definitions of the word.

actually from what i have seen Sadaam has be making much headway in putting aside the evil ways he once supported. granted he is a far cry from a good man in many ways but you have to overlook a lot of improvements the man has made over the years to still classify him as being counterproductive.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's quite easy to think you're doing the right thing and be *completely* wrong.

Agreed. And that's precisely what I think about many of your positions.

The response to terrorism? Ok, we got attacked. What politician worth his salt *wouldn't* have bombed Afghanistan and rid that country of the Taliban? It would have been political suicide to not do so.

I am comforted to know we'll never dfind out how much "salt" Gore is worth, and how he would have waged his campaign on terror. A meaningful campaign resulting in the ousting of the taliban from Afghanistan and capture of leadership? Or throw a few cruise missles their way and say "Gee, we we showed them!"

You give credit for Bush getting "approval" from the UN to go into Afghanistan, when I think you shouold be giving Bush credit for seeking approval.

What if the UN denied approval for the US to go into Afghanistan? Should we have continued to wait for support that might never come? Bush is to be applauded for seeking support from the U.N. and giving it a good faith effort when he didn't have need to.

We can state our case so many times and only for so long. We should not be expected to pander forever and drag people along with us. Present our case, over and over. Give a resonable effort at persuasion. At some point, you've got to concdede that they won't go along.

Frankly I don't call Bush's "Texan gunslinger" attitude with regard to the rest of the world "leadership."

If bush didn't go to the UN, I might consider it "Texan gunslinger" attitude. But he did.

It worked fine when black & white definitions of good vs evil were soothing to the nation after 9/11. But in the real world, diplomatic solutions and discussions are far more murky and require a great deal more finesse.

Yes, and in the real world, real people are willing to do things lik fly fully loaded jets into sky-scrapers. And real solutions don't always require political correctness and pandering to buraucrats to try and figure out how they can "sell" a war to their public, so they can save face at home.

That's something that this administration has yet to master, and it has cost us, especially in this Iraq problem.

What has it cost us, exactly? Europeans resent us? France resents us? What else is new. On a related note I still keep on hearing that we are "going this alone"? Since when does not having support from certain countries equate to us going it alone?

Funny thing is, while Gore certainly isn't a person that I wanted as my first choice for President, he *definitely* is the lesser of two evils between him and Bush.

Sorry you feel that way.

I wouldn't call Sharpton's support significant. Far from it.

Eh? Last time I checked he was in third place.

Considering that none of the candidates is currently getting more than 8% of support from the democratic base (save for Joe Lieberman, and that's just because of his name recognition from 2000), if you want to call Sharpton's support significant based off of that, then so be it. Frankly I'm hoping Sharpton drops out.

And that's exactly what the democrats hope...because he is successful at "rousing" and getting support for a large constituents of democrats. Blacks specifically. And democrats don't want him to fragment the party.

He's an embarrassment.

Lots of your fellow liberals don't think so.

Uhm, this isn't anti-Bush! The poll was saying that we don't want a war without UN support! If you're saying that flouting our obligations to the world negotiating bodies is "pro-Bush," that bullying our way through our negotiations is "pro-Bush," then so be it.

Some of us happen to have different opinions on the matter.

Uhm...Bush = Conservative. NYC = liberal. Yes, you have different opinions on the matter. Again, IT'S NOT SURPRISING that the NYC sentitment is anti-Bush / (anti-conservative). That's the nature of NYC. Terrorist attack or no terrorist attack.

No one is talking about being paralyzed and not being able to respond.

I am.

Frankly, as I've stated many *many* times, I think that indeed Saddam does need to be removed. I *question* doing it by ourselves when looking at the cost, financially and mindshare wise with the rest of the world, of going it alone. I *question* the abilities of this administration to bring along our allies in this conflict, which they have made a complete mess of.

I *question* anyone's belief that we are doing it ourselves. I *question* the need for any adminstration to get UN approval for self-defense. I *question* the sincerity of such objections to this adminstrations actions, given that the past adminstration performed several aggressive actions (including against Iraq) without getting approval, and I don't recall protest from democrats, republicans, or the UN.

I completely supported the bombing of Afghanistan. Why? Because we went in with the support of the UN!

So...if the UN didn't approve, you WOULDN'T have supported going into afghanistan? We need to get this straight. Does your approval of our actions depend on seeking approval or getting it?

We had *every* right to go into Afghanistan from 9/12 on

Why? Afghanistan didn't terrorize us. Some terrorists did.

Considering that I did report the results of that poll accurately, but had not seen the recent polls done in the past few days, your 'trust' or lack thereof is of little concern to me.

I'm sorry you don't feel the need for timely as well as accurate reporting....

Here's one link from the regarding said poll:

Again, what's the surprise? That NYC takes a liberal stance?

As I said many times, I agree that Saddam needs to go. I think that anyone in their right mind agrees that he needs to go. It's *how* we get there that people disagree over.

Right.

So how do we get there. What you seem to be arguing is that "if anyone but Bush was in the White-House, we would have been able to convince the UN to go along with us." Is that what you're saying?

As I said, I was glad about our initial response in Afghanistan *because* we went in with the support of the UN. This time we are most certainly going in to a war situation *without* the UN.

Again, are you saying you wouldn't be happy about out initial response if nothing was different other than the UN not supporting us?

Uhm, no. But there are quite a few moderates in the muslim world who would be more easily won over to our cause if we did indeed go into Iraq with the support of the world behind us.

Oh...so we are facing an increasing threat becayse these moderates you speak of, are being pushed into terrorism based on our actions?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i was by no means trying to sidestep, but sence you do not realize this i will state it clearly; i dissagree with your assertion directly.

Then why don't you state your disagreement with us accurately.

yes i lissened to it, and i take strong offence at the way you atempt to belittle my postion with the false implacations in your questioning.

And I take strong offense at the way you continually misrepresent my position with false implications in your statements.

but no one "has" to do anything, you are using your free will wether you chose to admit it or not; and useing it to jusitfy killing at that.

Right no one "had" to stop Hitler either. We were just using our free will, and used it to justify killing. I take strong offense at the way you continually misrepresent my position with false implications in your statements.

it is you that is argueing in support of war so you are in no postion to lecture me on respect for peace.

I repeat. You don't believe that peace can be brought through war. Let me ask you someting. Does "peace" to you simply mean the absense of physical conflict? Is that your definition of peace?

but the war was stoped, and i wish you might learn to respect the value of that and the lives of those who died to being upon that end.

I'm sorry. I'm just getting f*cking PISSED now at your continual presumptuous statements. It is PRECICELY becase I respect the value and the lives of those who died...ON ALL SIDES, that peace treaties must be obeyed and enforced. Had that been done 12 f*cking years ago, we wouldn't be making the hard decisions today about MORE scrifice in the interests of PEACE.

actually from what i have seen Sadaam has be making much headway in putting aside the evil ways he once supported. granted he is a far cry from a good man in many ways but you have to overlook a lot of improvements the man has made over the years to still classify him as being counterproductive.

 

[Goragoth]

A few things I would like to know:

Has Saddam/Iraq been linked to any terrorism? Has Iraq been proven to be in league with/sponsoring terrorism? And I mean actual proof and not vague claims/assumptions by politicians. I'm not saying that it hasn't, I just truly want to know because several people have mentioned terrorism as a reason to oust Saddam.

Related to the above, is Iraq a threat to US security, if so how? If its just WMD then there are a lot of other countries that are also equal threats N.Korea for example. Obviously if there are Iraqi links to terrorism that would be a threat.

If the only reason for the war is breaches of UN resolutions on disarmament etc... then shouldn't it be up to the UN to decide to go to war and not just a US decision? If there is a direct threat to the US I can see the justification but the US does not get to decide to enforce UN law all by itself (or even with Britain).

I also have a hard time taking Bush seriously in particularly because he has said that he doesn't believe that there is proof that global warming is happening and because of his walking out of the Kyoto protocol.

 

[kyleb]

Then why don't you state your disagreement with us accurately.

i seems to me that i put much effort into making my opinion clear and it is simply that you chose not to accept it. the city was liberated and a treaty was created which gave way to peace, while it is true that the treaty has not been fulfilled the peace has persisted and i belive that we should show more reverence to this in spite of the adversities at hand.

And I take strong offense at the way you continually misrepresent my position with false implications in your statements.

for where i have done that, i am truly sorry. i do want to find understanding with you on this matter and i hope we can work past our failures in the hopes of acivieing such resolution.

Right no one "had" to stop Hitler either. We were just using our free will, and used it to justify killing. I take strong offense at the way you continually misrepresent my position with false implications in your statements.

but that is a seperate situation and from what i understand of it i would have supported war with germany long before the U.S. ever got invovled.

I repeat. You don't believe that peace can be brought through war. Let me ask you someting. Does "peace" to you simply mean the absense of physical conflict? Is that your definition of peace?

i generally stick to definitions as they are found in our common dictionaries, so yes i agree with your definition of peace. again i present that peace is an idea that cannot be achieved but we can work both toward and against an ideal, and initiating violence by declaring war is most defiantly working against the ideal of peace.

but the war was stoped, and i wish you might learn to respect the value of that and the lives of those who died to being upon that end.

I'm sorry. I'm just getting f*cking PISSED now at your continual presumptuous statements. It is PRECICELY becase I respect the value and the lives of those who died...ON ALL SIDES, that peace treaties must be obeyed and enforced. Had that been done 12 f*cking years ago, we wouldn't be making the hard decisions today about MORE scrifice in the interests of PEACE.

i didn't mean to upset you on that, i should have been more clear. i wish that you might respect the value of the lives that died as i do; enough not to support the start of yet another war. again, i understand that you are disappointed that the treaty has not been fulfilled to your satisfaction; but i am disappointed that you feel compelled to justify war based on your displeasure. don't take that personal though, i hold everyone one including myself to those same standards; and i also understand that none of us will ever fully live up to such ideals, but i still belive in them just the same.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Has Saddam/Iraq been linked to any terrorism? Has Iraq been proven to be in league with/sponsoring terrorism? And I mean actual proof and not vague claims/assumptions by politicians.

Yes, he has been linked. It's a question of whether those links are to your satisfaction. There have been several links to sources throughout these threads. Lots of info comes from U.S. intelligence corroborated by Iraqi defectors, and it sometimes becomes a case of "do you believe the defector?"

For example:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9B01EED81E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63

Related to the above, is Iraq a threat to US security, if so how? If its just WMD then there are a lot of other countries that are also equal threats N.Korea for example. Obviously if there are Iraqi links to terrorism that would be a threat.

Right. It's the combination of Iraq's links to terrorism, and the WMD that they refuse to acknowldge / disarm that makes the threat real.

If the only reason for the war is breaches of UN resolutions on disarmament etc... then shouldn't it be up to the UN to decide to go to war and not just a US decision?

Yes, for the most part. Note that our push for action did not occur, and Bush specifically stated that the push for action occured because 9/11 changed everything, and the way we need to evaluate the terrorist threat.

If 9/11 never happened, we probably still wouldn't be taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough to forcibly remove Sadam from power...

I also have a hard time taking Bush seriously in particularly because he has said that he doesn't believe that there is proof that global warming is happening...

Actually, I don't thing he believes that...he just doesn't either see global warming as an issue that needs to be dealt with, (proof the global warming is "bad" vs. merely a change, or proof that limiting man-made C02 emissions can do anything about it, or perhaps that or that the Kyoto is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction based on unfarily fleecing the U.S. of money and resources.) Anyway, DC made a nice post on Kyoto somewhere in this thread. Kyoto was all but dead before Bush made it to office.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Kyle,
I see losts of contradicting / blanket statements, but I'll concentrate on this:

i generally stick to definitions as they are found in our common dictionaries, so yes i agree with your definition of peace.

I have not given you my definition of peace. Peace is NOT simply an absense of physical violence. You can have a tyrannical dictator who rules with fear and threats such that no one dares to physically revolt.

That's not peace. That's the absense of violence. Two entirely different things.

again i present that peace is an idea that cannot be achieved..

I basically agree with that....

but we can work both toward and against an ideal, and initiating violence by declaring war is most defiantly working against the ideal of peace.

No, it's not by definition. It depends entirely on who war is being declared on, and the individual circumstances surounding the situation.

i wish that you might respect the value of the lives that died as i do; enough not to support the start of yet another war.

Sigh...

I DO respect the lives that died as you do. I ALSO respect and valu, and I wish you would, the lives of those still liing under his regime. And AGAIN, it is precisely because I do, that I support this action.

again, i understand that you are disappointed that the treaty has not been fulfilled to your satisfaction;

Not just my satisfaction, but EVERYONE'S. (At least, everyone in the UN security council.)

but i am disappointed that you feel compelled to justify war based on your displeasure.

You mean, the world's displeasure, not mine.

And I am disappointed that you feel every other reasonable course of action to get compliance hasn't been tried for 12 years and failed, leaving us no choice but to act...unless you want to lose respect and value for those lost in the initial conflict, as well as those still living under his regime.

 

[Heathen]

I've seen two misunderstandings in my quick broswe though here.

1) We attacked/invaded Afghanistan: Nope we atacked the Taliban/Al Qaida. They just happened to be in Afghanistan.

2) War on Iraq is in breach of international law: Not by a long shot, there are numerous instances throughout international law which support this law, although there are also numerous instances where it doesn't as well. Depends on you perspective really but as we've never declared peace with iraq the point is moot.

 

[kyleb]

no i do not mean the worlds displeasure, i do not see the world calling for war on this; only a vocal minority of it. also, i agreed with your incomplete assessment of peace as you had presented it previously, and i agree with your continued explanation. however, i still do not agree with what you belive is justification for engaging in war in this case. but please do not take offence to that, it is a product of my concept of morality which has been in development far before we ever crossed paths, i do respect that your beliefs are different than mine and i hope to find resolution but the day has gone on to long for me so i am off to sleep; goodnight and may god bless us all.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

no i do not mean the worlds displeasure, i do not see the world calling for war on this;

The WORLD agrees that Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire. That is not debatable.

however, i still do not agree with what you belive is justification for engaging in war in this case.

Really?

but please do not take offence to that, it is a product of my concept of morality which has been in development far before we ever crossed paths, i do respect that your beliefs are different than mine and i hope to find resolution but the day has gone on to long for me so i am off to sleep; goodnight and god bless us all.

I will continue to take offense as long as you insist on telling me that I have no respect or value for the dead in the initial conflict.

That is personally insulting.

If you truly RESPECT my beliefs like you claim to, then you wouldn't say such things. You would understand that I have as much respect and reverence for life as you do. Our beliefs differ on the best way to preserve it.

 

[epicstruggle]

I understand what you're saying, Democoder, about our form of government being better than a pure democracy, but I disagree that it is the "republic" part of our government that necessarily gives you that.

I'm disputing the statement that "in a republic you have rights that no-one can take away".

The first hundred and fifty years of our republic should be proof enough that it guarantees nothing in terms of rights.

Russ, the rights we have are given (endowed) by our creator. Our government makes sure that they are not taken away. Would you agree that every person in this world has a right to worship as he/she chooses? Well different governments types will protect that right more than others. In a totalitarism(sp?) a select few decide whether or not you are allowed to worship as you please. In a democracy a majority of people could decide to burn very symbol of your religion, and force you to worship what they want you to worship. In a republic, the government is supposed to protect you to worship as you choose. However like i said before, not all politicians do as their supposed to, but follow polls and what not.

When you mention the first 150 years of this countries history, not every one had rights. Why? Because back then people did not think a black person or even women in general had any rights at all (maybe a limited number). This was part of the thinking back then. However it could be argued(at least I have no sources to support) that a majority of people were never for freeing the slaves and yet this government set out to do just that. It took a long time but it was done.

When you think of a democracy you should think of it as a MOBocracy.

later,

 

[epicstruggle]

I've seen two misunderstandings in my quick broswe though here.

1) We attacked/invaded Afghanistan: Nope we atacked the Taliban/Al Qaida. They just happened to be in Afghanistan.

2) War on Iraq is in breach of international law: Not by a long shot, there are numerous instances throughout international law which support this law, although there are also numerous instances where it doesn't as well. Depends on you perspective really but as we've never declared peace with iraq the point is moot.

Ah, a voice of reason. you are correct

later,

 

[Goragoth]

Pure democracy does not work, that is true and that is why no country has a truly democratic government. Democracy is often used more or less losely to describe any government with elected officials (so a republic can be considered a democracy). I know, not strictly speaking but the fun of natural language is that it often gets mangeled

Whether or not a war would be a breach of international law is up to the UN to decide is it not? Or does the US truly think that its above the UN? That's how it looks to much of the world and that's the sort of thing that can get people to hate America. I'm not sure that the war on terror is truly making the world a safer place, it may just be fueling hatred in the middle east, especially if the US is to act without explicit UN backing.

Then again I can see some valid reasons for attacking Iraq, among them the clear breach of the cease fire/disarmament agreements and possible ties to terrorism.

Good luck to America anyway, I hope the war goes smoothly and without too many civilian casulties.

 

[epicstruggle]

Pure democracy does not work, that is true and that is why no country has a truly democratic government. Democracy is often used more or less losely to describe any government with elected officials (so a republic can be considered a democracy). I know, not strictly speaking but the fun of natural language is that it often gets mangeled
....
Good luck to America anyway, I hope the war goes smoothly and without too many civilian casulties.

Goragoth, your right that language does get mangled over time. I hate reasoning where they state "but we live in a democracy". No we dont, we have representitives that look out for our best interests. This is not a democracy.

thanks for the good luck. I have not said this yet, but I pray that the casuilties in Iraq are minimized, and that every soldier comes back safe and sound. Im also praying that saddam and his son have a monent of clarityh and decide to leave.

later,

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm sorry, Epic. We're just going to have to disagree about the nature of democracy vs. republic, particularly that either one affords more rights than the other.

 

[epicstruggle]

I'm sorry, Epic. We're just going to have to disagree about the nature of democracy vs. republic, particularly that either one affords more rights than the other.

I guess we will. Let me just say this again, neither forms of government PROVIDE rights. Those rights are given by our creator. The 2 forms of government do however differ in that democracy does not inherintly protect those rights and a republic does protect those rights.

later,

 

[zidane1strife]

The fate of the United States will be set in stone within a matter of hours... days at most... they have opened the gates... Soon it shall start, the beginning of a new world... a path has opened for the improvement of humanity... even if it might not please those at the top or among the bottom...

 

[Silent_One]

Let me just say this again, neither forms of government PROVIDE rights. Those rights are given by our creator. The 2 forms of government do however differ in that democracy does not inherintly protect those rights and a republic does protect those rights.

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence invokes Natural Law, God, and Positive Law as the sources of rights.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.........

 

[epicstruggle]

Wrong. The Declaration of Independence invokes Natural Law, God, and Positive Law as the sources of rights.

I was trying to be general. Thanks for the smackdown.

later,