The War On Iraq has started.

[kyleb]

we have had many such plans though our history John, we have often failed to live up our plans as well. but that does not make them bad plans, nor does it make this war a good plan.

 

[Natoma]

War is despicable and I feel empathy for those who will inevitably be forced to kill and through mistakes will inevitably murder, this is real life not some war movie here wake yourself up.

Speaking of real life, war is a reality of the world we live in. Waking up to reality means that inaction almost guarantees more American planes and skyscrapers will be saying "Hello!" to each other in the near future.

It's real easy to write that war is despicable. It's a nice sentiment. What I never hear from such detractors is a viable alternative plan for dealing with terrorists who'd love to sneak a nuclear bomb into New York's harbor and detonate it, killing millions of civilians.

I think a lot of people, myself included, wishes that in getting us to this point, Bush and his administration didn't burn practically all of our bridges by showing an utter and total lack of diplomatic ability over the past year.

I don't think that anyone at this point honestly believes that Saddam Hussein isn't in material breach in some way, shape, or form. What I disagree with is how we basically threatened, bribed, and forced our way into making our 'allies' come along with us.

Mexico (threatened by the administration, bush in particular, which was rescinded after protests from that country) and Turkey (bribed to allow basing rights) are the most prominent of these examples.

I'm not worried about the actual war. It will be won decisively. I'm worried about the aftermath when we have to pick up the pieces, both economically and socially. Especially if we end up having to do the bulk of the work by ourselves, with everything else this country has on its plate as it is.

 

[duncan36]

Speaking of real life, war is a reality of the world we live in. Waking up to reality means that inaction almost guarantees more American planes and skyscrapers will be saying "Hello!" to each other in the near future.

Sorry your fear-mongering does not work on me. If you want me to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 prove it otherwise your argument holds no water.
Its much more likely chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union will fall into terrorist hands why aren't we invading them using your logic?

 

[John Reynolds]

I think a lot of people, myself included, wishes that in getting us to this point, Bush and his administration didn't burn practically all of our bridges by showing an utter and total lack of diplomatic ability over the past year.

I don't think that anyone at this point honestly believes that Saddam Hussein isn't in material breach in some way, shape, or form. What I disagree with is how we basically threatened, bribed, and forced our way into making our 'allies' come along with us.

Mexico (threatened by the administration, bush in particular, which was rescinded after protests from that country) and Turkey (bribed to allow basing rights) are the most prominent of these examples.

I'm not worried about the actual war. It will be won decisively. I'm worried about the aftermath when we have to pick up the pieces, both economically and socially. Especially if we end up having to do the bulk of the work by ourselves, with everything else this country has on its plate as it is.

I couldn't agree more. I've had some rather vehement arguments with a co-worker the last few days because he became angry with me when I called Bush a "diplomatic moron" and that we're paying the price of putting a man into the White House who had absolutely no international relations experience (though we always hope such a president's cabinet/advisors will steer him well).

 

[John Reynolds]

Sorry your fear-mongering does not work on me. If you want me to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 prove it otherwise your argument holds no water.
Its much more likely chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union will fall into terrorist hands why aren't we invading them using your logic?

Perhaps you should ask why one of Saddam's sons just earlier today stated that Iraq will "broaden" their war against the US. Whatever could he be referring to, throwing words our way?

 

[kyleb]

no kidding, i supported Bush's presidency knowing the man was far from perfect; but in hindsight i feel that i have put too far to much faith in the people who i thought could bring balance to the problems i saw with him. "diplomatic moron" is rather a harsh way to put it, but i none the less agree with rational behind it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

if you would be so kind as to state specifically "the problem" which you would like me to address, i would be happy to reiterate my opinions yet again in the hopes that you might find value in them.

Sigh. There are two problems, both related. Here's the first one:

I suppose we should first establish whether or not you think a problem exists.

Here's the premise:

The "Nations of the World", the security council of the UN we all cherish so much, unanimously drafted and signed on final resolutoin 1441. (After years and years of defiance of a signed peace treaty and several other resolutions.

This was the resolution that in summary said: "Disarm by X Date, or face serious consequneces"

Presumably, these nations feel it's rather important for Iraq to disarm by X Date. Correct? These nations feel that there is a problem, that calls for "serious consequences" to address that problem if Sadam doesn't comply.

Sadam did not comply.

So
1) Do you feel that this is a problem, or do you disagree with the UN, or just think they are being hypocritical?
2) If you do belive it's a problem, what is you specific solution of "serious consequences?"

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Its much more likely chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union will fall into terrorist hands why aren't we invading them using your logic?

Odd...I'm not aware of the Soviet Union losing to us in a war, viloating a peace treaty and defying several world-wide demands to disarm. Do you?

Why do those peace treaty terms exists? Why does the WORLD-WIDE demands for Iraqi disarmanent exist?

Answer those questions, and you know why we're going ispecifically nto Iraq.

 

[antlers]

Serious consequences was left deliberately ambiguous in 1441 because most of the Security Council never bought into the notion that war was a good solution.

"Serious consequences"--depending on the country that signed the resolution, might mean a more severe sanctions regime, "inspections by force" (an idea proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), or indictments from the International Criminal Court. We can't insist that the U.S.'s intepretation of 1441 is the only possible one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Serious consequences was left deliberately ambiguous in 1441 because most of the Security Council never bought into the notion that war was a good solution.

No kidding. (I predicted that would happen before details of the resolution went public, BTW) Point? Irrespecitve of what "serious consequeces" means, it means SOMETHING should happen, no?

We can't insist that the U.S.'s intepretation of 1441 is the only possible one.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm saying that the "World" takes the fact that Sadam has not disarmed seriously. That is evidenced by the resolution.

Sadam doesn't disarm = something "serious" will happen.

In other words, "the world" is in complete agreement that Sadam should not posess or develop WMD. Now ask yourself WHY that's the case.

 

[kyleb]

thank you antilers4, you answered the question for me while i enjoyed lunch.


and to your follow-up Joe, you know why as well as the rest of us do. the argument is not about wether the agreement was meant, or if the agreement should stand; neither issues is in dispute. the ambiguous wording of the document is were the disagreement stems from, and the idea that it justifies war what has created opposition.

 

[antlers]

Perhaps you should ask why one of Saddam's sons just earlier today stated that Iraq will "broaden" their war against the US. Whatever could he be referring to, throwing words our way?

There's a vicious dog in the neighborhood. Your neighbor wants to waits for animal control to come along with a tranquilizer dart, but you decide to beat it to death with a stick. In the process it bites you. Then you say, "See, it bit me. Good thing I decided to kill it."

 

[Silent_One]

There's a vicious dog in the neighborhood. Your neighbor wants to waits for animal control to come along with a tranquilizer dart, but you decide to beat it to death with a stick. In the process it bites you. Then you say, "See, it bit me. Good thing I decided to kill it."

No, I say "See, it bit me. Good thing I decided to kill it before it hurts anyone elce"

 

[Joe DeFuria]

There's a vicious dog in the neighborhood. Your neighbor wants to waits for animal control to come along with a tranquilizer dart, but you decide to beat it to death with a stick. In the process it bites you. Then you say, "See, it bit me. Good thing I decided to kill it."

No...

* Did I loose a few digits of my own the first time I forcibly confronted this dog with the support of the neighborhood?

* As a result, has everyone in the neighborhood agreed that "yes, that dog is vicious alright! That dog needs to stop being vicious. He can achieve that by getting his teeth pulled and claws removed...he can't harm much then!"

* Has the dog time after time made excuses for keeping his teeth and claws? Even claimed he didn't have them when he surely did?

* Did I, again with the backing of the rest of the neighborhood, make one final demand that he defang or "face serious consequences?"

* Did he still not comply?

* Did the rest of the neighborhood say "Well, um, you can't force the dog from the neighborhood yet, but I'm not sure what we should really do about it. How about another ultimatum that says "defang or else face serious consequences....um, really?"

* In the mean time, is this dog oppressing his own puppies?

* Do I give the dog 48 hours to leave?

* Does he not leave?

* Drive it out of the neighborhood, by force. If it resists to the point of meaning it's ultimate death, so be it.

 

[Sabastian]

What are the "rights" of man

In my opinion, the only rights we have are those that are protected in one way or another.

Nature and God have done a poor job of directly protecting rights, so my vote is on government, which means we're in deep trouble!

Well Russ I wouldn't disagree so much if I could point and say look at how much better the human condition has become sense it was involked into charter law here in Canada. There is no one going around saying "things are so much better now we have the charter in place" for example. I see nothing wrong with the state simply assuming that we do have rights as humans ect. With these charters depending on how they are written it opens the door for the article to be taken literally or creatively so that indeed they may create areas that the charter was not intended to protect and so on creating chaos in the courtroom.

When I asked earlier "what are rights" I was not looking for an answer of where they came from etc. But we ought to really be putting our finger on just what these fuzzy "rights" are real hard so that when we talk about human rights we know just what the hell we are trying to talk about shouldn't we? Simply saying rights come from the wrongs and so on really does not help does it. Since life is so full of wrongs (everyday something new.) one could be constantly be charging others with doing something that was a breach of my human rights.So this explanation that Silent_One offered really is not much help is it? So I ask again what are rights?

I guess what I am saying is that we should be extremely careful on just what human rights are else the next thing we find ourselves prostrate to is poorly written charter law in the hands of some crazed social radical out to save the world from themselves.

I'd rather God was in charge of my rights then some social activist nut bar, but that is simply my opinion. The state didn't make to many wrongs when they knew the big guy was in charge of human rights at least not enough for myself or anyone else to actually notice the differance between today and twenty years ago. I find it ironic however now that the state is in charge of my rights that they discriminate against me using the money I pay them via taxation.

No matter what it used to be, now that the state has it in writing they are now the proprietors of the powers of legislation it can conjure and "deep trouble" may be an accurate discription. Say hello to egalitarianism with this new found almost religious persuit of human rights.

 

[RussSchultz]

I'd rather God was in charge of my rights then some social activist nut bar, but that is simply my opinion

Thats fine, but God doesn't really help ensure those rights in any active way.

 

[Pete]

Serious consequences was left deliberately ambiguous in 1441 because most of the Security Council never bought into the notion that war was a good solution.

"Serious consequences"--depending on the country that signed the resolution, might mean a more severe sanctions regime, "inspections by force" (an idea proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), or indictments from the International Criminal Court. We can't insist that the U.S.'s intepretation of 1441 is the only possible one.

"Serious consequences" is an unambiguous euphemism for the military option. "A more severe inspections regime" is meaningless. "Inspections by force" will be undertaken in 24 hours, no thanks to those countries that would like to profit from Iraq for a few more years. Indictments mean nothing if, as with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country's rulers are uninterested in justice.

All the signers of 1441 cannot deny that the U.S.'s interpretation of "serious consequences" was the only one that counted. 1441 was undertaken with the explicit understanding that if Saddam did not comply, a second resolution would be passed making explicit 1441's implied (in the interest of diplomacy) military threat.

France proposed a two-resolution plan of attack. They have reneged on their plan. Thus I fail to see why we should continue the plan France itself has abandoned.

 

[Sabastian]

I'd rather God was in charge of my rights then some social activist nut bar, but that is simply my opinion

Thats fine, but God doesn't really help ensure those rights in any active way.

Hrm I think youve missed my point. The state being in control of my "rights" have not advanced them in any way rather it has been reversed by some queer logic. Again the state was forced to assume that I had rights before charter law, I believe they acted in good faith that I was a human. But seriously I really don't see the charter as that great of an implement. I am not sure if I want the state to be in charge of my rights.

 

[kyleb]

best i can tell our rights are equal and under god alone; and when people try to mess with that it causes all sorts of trouble.

 

[Sabastian]

best i can tell our rights are equal and under god alone; and when people try to mess with that it causes all sorts of trouble.

I couldn't agree more.