America - The Official Thread

[Blackbird.]

I was all gung 'ho for the War and such but now I really despise it.

Do you really think war was the correct choice of action?

 

[Danoff]

Do you really think war was the correct choice of action?

Let's examine. What was the reason for the action? To spread democracy to an anti-democratic region in order to stem terrorism.

Is that working? Yes.

Was it worth it? Debatable. (I think yes)

 

[Kylehnat]

Let's examine. What was the reason for the action? To spread democracy to an anti-democratic region in order to stem terrorism.

Is that working? Yes.

Was it worth it? Debatable. (I think yes)

Problem is you cannot stem terrorism. It's an idea, not a tangible entity. You could kill all of the current terrorists in the world, but more will pop up later. And was it really necessary for countless thousands of people to die for something so vague? Nope.

 

[Danoff]

Problem is you cannot stem terrorism. It's an idea, not a tangible entity. You could kill all of the current terrorists in the world, but more will pop up later. And was it really necessary for countless thousands of people to die for something so vague? Nope.

You can't STOP terrorism. But you can reduced it drastically. Democracy helps quite a bit... though we need only to remember the Oklahoma city bombing to realize that it isn't sufficient to end terrorism altogether.

One of the goals is to help create American sympathizers in Arab nations... which is what we're working on now.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

One of the goals is to help create American sympathizers in Arab nations...

Why?

To spread democracy to an anti-democratic region in order to stem terrorism.

And I've already proved that terrorists are being harbored in Saudi Arabia and possibly Nigeria -- that's not an excuse. "Spread democracy" sounds like hegemony to me.

Here's your problem in a nutshell , you think " Fahrenheit 9/11" was a documentary . since that farce has been seriously dismantled and exposed for the propaganda story it is , I find it impossible to debate with someone who uses it at a base for an opinion...in effect " I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed oponent " .

Fahrenheit 9/11 is propagandistic... not unlike some of the posts in the opinions forum.

Was it worth it? Debatable.

Absolutely not (at least for the reasons/justifications you've provided). Too expensive, too many lives at risk...

We invaded as an attempt to stem terrorism.

So they say.

The presence of a democracy in the region will affect the mentality of the people there.

Speaking of region, do you forsee an attack on Syria soon?

The justification to go to war with Iraq was the violation of the cease fire argreement of the first gulf war.

Evidence to support this?

The REASON to go to war with Iraq was to create a democracy in an anti-democratic, anti-American region.

Anti-democratic and anti-American? That's not a reason to go to war. The former Soviet Union was anti-democratic and anti-American as well -- no need for a "regime change" there, though.

 

[Danoff]

Evidence to support this?

Uh, seriously? You actually want proof that Iraq violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war? Press coverage of Iraqi aircraft violating the no fly zone isn't good enough for you? Press coverage of Saddam refusing to allow inspections in certain areas of his country isn't good enough for you?

Anti-democratic and anti-American? That's not a reason to go to war. The former Soviet Union was anti-democratic and anti-American as well -- no need for a "regime change" there, though.

Actually, it is a reason to go to war.. it just isn't a justification. I can guarantee that if we could have pulled off "regime change" in the former Soviet Union as easily as we have in Iraq we'd have done that a long time ago.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Uh, seriously? You actually want proof that Iraq violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war? Press coverage of Iraqi aircraft violating the no fly zone isn't good enough for you? Press coverage of Saddam refusing to allow inspections in certain areas of his country isn't good enough for you?

Links?

 

[Danoff]

Links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

 

[Solid Fro]

Judging by your user name, MrktMkr1986, you are about the same age as I (20). You should be old enough to remember Saddam violating the No Fly Zones just about every night on the news and kicking out UN weapons inspectors just about every other month. Ten years, 17 UN resolutions.

Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Judging by your user name, MrktMkr1986, you are about the same age as I (20). You should be old enough to remember Saddam violating the No Fly Zones just about every night on the news and kicking out UN weapons inspectors just about every other month. Ten years, 17 UN resolutions.

Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Sec...Resolution_1441

Of course I remember. I specifically asked for links for a reason. Thank you, though.

I have a few questions to ask now that I've educated myself:

• Who, ultimately, is responsible for enforcing UN Security Council resolutions?
• Is a preemptive attack legal under international law?
• Is the "Downing Street memo" a hoax?
• Since Resolution 688 does not specifically mention the existence of "no-fly zones" does that still make them legal under international law? If so, what other document/source defends this?

 

[Diego440]

IN justifying the Iraq war you can speak in two terms: patriotically or objectively.

If you're from a patriotic viewpoint, you won't give in to anything and we won't be able to reach any kind of agreement.

From the objective viewpoint, we should both be able to agree that war is wrong in any case. Any war is the product of failed diplomacy.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

IN justifying the Iraq war you can speak in two terms: patriotically or objectively.

If you're from a patriotic viewpoint, you won't give in to anything and we won't be able to reach any kind of agreement.

From the objective viewpoint, we should both be able to agree that war is wrong in any case. Any war is the product of failed diplomacy.

Exactly.

To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them.

 

[RedWolfRacer]

People are complaining about casualties in this conflict???

Think about this a moment:
One casualty is too many. On the other hand, we've had fewer casualties in this 4 year period of conflict than in any other "war". 2,000 people in over 4 years is a very low number really. Yes, it sucks that we lose our loved ones, but you signed a contract stating you would defend your country when you joined the military. When we were attacked some years ago, our best defense became offense and no one argued. Now, however, everyone it seems is pacifistic. So sad how easily we forget what it is we're doing.

 

[Solid Fro]

Who, ultimately, is responsible for enforcing UN Security Council resolutions?

Member nations.

Is a preemptive attack legal under international law?

To enforce UN resolutions, yes.

Is the "Downing Street memo" a hoax?

If the documents cannot be authenticated, then yes.

Since Resolution 688 does not specifically mention the existence of "no-fly zones" does that still make them legal under international law? If so, what other document/source defends this?

To ensure that Saddam complied to UN Resolution 688, then yes. No documents needed.

People are complaining about casualties in this conflict???

Think about this a moment:
One casualty is too many. On the other hand, we've had fewer casualties in this 4 year period of conflict than in any other "war". 2,000 people in over 4 years is a very low number really. Yes, it sucks that we lose our loved ones, but you signed a contract stating you would defend your country when you joined the military. When we were attacked some years ago, our best defense became offense and no one argued. Now, however, everyone it seems is pacifistic. So sad how easily we forget what it is we're doing.

I agree, RedWolf, but I don't think the American people are complaining, only the media is. You can tell this by seeing how many people really do show up for anti-war protests with Cindy Shehan. A handful of bigots, herself, and dozens of media personalities and cameras. So much for "representing" America...

The media, from minute one of Operation Iraqi Freedom, hated it. They will attack President Bush on anything, including artificial numbers like 2,000. Every death in Iraq is heartbreaking. The 2,000th death was neither more nor less meaningful than the 1,999 that preceded it.

The media (and some users in this thread) have a very short memory on why we started this war. None of them will stop Iraqis from obtaining democracy and freedom.

 

[Zardoz]

...The media (and some users in this thread) have a very short memory on why we started this war. None of them will stop Iraqis from obtaining democracy and freedom.

Very true. The media won't have anything whatsoever to do with Iraq never becoming a free democracy. Its the Iraqis themselves who will do that.

Just look at what a good job of it the Iraqis are doing already, and they're getting better at it with each passing day.

 

[ledhed]

Thats the whole point . We all sit around pontificating on our computers , while slowly and steadily the Iraqi people are establishing a Democracy and getting their country back in order. DESPITE the idiot naysayers in the media and elswhere . DESPITE the Saddam loyalist and other SUNNIs trying to foment civil war..they seem to ignore them now..but when they get a little stronger I predict alot of former bombers and rebels hanging from trees . DESPITE the foreign maryr jihadist making Iraq a devils playground..they better enjoy it now the Iraqis wont stand for it for long .
The US did a good and noble thing for a good and noble cause ..with a healthy dose of self interest .The world is a better place without Saddam and with democracy in Iraq . Thats the bottom line .

 

[FoolKiller]

To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them.

I hate the way this argument has become used with a passion. Anti-war protesters use it constantly and accuse those in support of the war, or whatever the issue at hand is, of trying to restrict their freedom of speech. A counter protest or debate is not restricting your freedom of speech, it is me practicing mine. If I choose to legally protest your protest then I am merely doing the same thing that you are doing only I have chosen to protest you and your ideas instead of the government policy.

Why should I not be allowed to say that I think you are wrong? Democracy is not just the government and the private citizens who disagree with them. There is also the private citizens that do agree with them. By agreeing with a policy I am not just lying down and letting the leader, "the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands." I am saying I agree with him. Usually that is how he became the leader. Comparing me to desperate German citizens allowing themselves to be swept up into the policies of Nazism is incorrect and somewhat offensive. I am sure every person in support of the war can find at least one thing they also disagree with President Bush on.

MrktMkr1986, just so you know, I was not offended by the quoting of this statement because I know that you recognize the majority of the people on this board are intelligent people and not a bunch of lemmings. I am aware that you were just pointing out that you can be against the war and still support the country. I felt the need to respond to that quote because I have seen too many people use that to call those in support of the war lemmings.

So, no need to defend yourself here because I was not offended and accuse you of nothing. Besides, I have been called much worse than a lemming in a political debate. Do however feel free to debate what I have said in reference to the quote if you disagree.

 

[Diego440]

protesting is always good... as long as you're allowed to do it... and your country allows it. The problem is when the law says you can do it, but the government won't allow it... but that's another story altogether.

 

[FoolKiller]

protesting is always good... as long as you're allowed to do it... and your country allows it. The problem is when the law says you can do it, but the government won't allow it... but that's another story altogether.

Is that where you are?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I hate the way this argument has become used with a passion. Anti-war protesters use it constantly and accuse those in support of the war, or whatever the issue at hand is, of trying to restrict their freedom of speech. A counter protest or debate is not restricting your freedom of speech, it is me practicing mine. If I choose to legally protest your protest then I am merely doing the same thing that you are doing only I have chosen to protest you and your ideas instead of the government policy.

Why should I not be allowed to say that I think you are wrong? Democracy is not just the government and the private citizens who disagree with them. There is also the private citizens that do agree with them. By agreeing with a policy I am not just lying down and letting the leader, "the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands." I am saying I agree with him. Usually that is how he became the leader. Comparing me to desperate German citizens allowing themselves to be swept up into the policies of Nazism is incorrect and somewhat offensive. I am sure every person in support of the war can find at least one thing they also disagree with President Bush on.

MrktMkr1986, just so you know, I was not offended by the quoting of this statement because I know that you recognize the majority of the people on this board are intelligent people and not a bunch of lemmings. I am aware that you were just pointing out that you can be against the war and still support the country. I felt the need to respond to that quote because I have seen too many people use that to call those in support of the war lemmings.

So, no need to defend yourself here because I was not offended and accuse you of nothing. Besides, I have been called much worse than a lemming in a political debate. Do however feel free to debate what I have said in refernce to the quote if you disagree.

Not only do I agree with you, but you've also accurately pointed out why I used the quote in the first place (though, in retrospect, I probably could have left off the latter portion). Thanks.

 

[Danoff]

Who, ultimately, is responsible for enforcing UN Security Council resolutions?

The UN. However, each individual country that signed on to the cease fire agreement following Gulf War I and all the terms therein (and every UN resolution following) has a separate individual agreement with Iraq. Any one of the countries that the Iraqis made that agreement with can justifiably take action against the offending party INDIVIDUALLY

Is a preemptive attack legal under international law?

Treaty enforcement is.

Let's reduce this to a simple scenario.

There's a schoolyard bully who is taking everyone's lunch money. We'll call him Saddam. One day saddam picks on Kewait (one of the kids at the school) and decides to beat him up. Joe (US) gets ticked and jumps in to defend Kewait. Similarly Pippin (UK) and others chip in with the occational kick to the stomach as Saddam is betting pummeled. Kewait staggers off to class.

Saddam yells "Stop, I'll do anything just tell me what I have to do!".

Joe, Pippin, Dingo-Man, and now Francois and Hanz who have walked over to the scene and are ticked at Saddam too decide that they should set the terms for which they'll leave Saddam alone and let him go back to whatever it is he does when he's not taking money.

The group decides that Saddam has to open his pockets every day before school and during lunch so that they can make sure that he hasn't taken anyone's money. Saddam agrees.

The next day at lunch time Saddam refused to open his pockets for inspection by the group. Joe looks at Pippin, Dingo, Francois, Hanz and others and says "what are we going to do?". Francois says "nothing, I'm fine with it. He gave me some extra money today anyway." Hanz says "You know what, I don't care. I'm outta here. I hate you guys." Dingo says "Whatever Mate. I'm up for a fight, and then we'll put some shrimp on the barbee." Pippin says something non-committal.

Joe (and the others) let Saddam go as long as he promises to open his pockets tomorrow. But tomorrow comes and he doesn't... and the group doesn't want to do anything. Meanwhile people seem to be getting beaten up, and missing money. Saddam continues to refuse to open his pockets at lunch.

Finally Joe gets sick of it. Joe, Dingo, and Pippin go against the wishes of the group (to do nothing) and beat the crap out of Saddam. They then kick him out of school, so that he can never return (students can do that in this school).

Now I ask you, did Joe, have a right to get invovled when Hanz and Francois were not willing to jump in? Just because Hanz and Francois didn't want to enforce their part in the agreement, does that mean that Joe couldn't enforce his?

Saddam made an agreement with everyone in the group, that he would open his pockets. If one or two, or even the majority of the members don't want to enforce the terms - that doesn't mean that the rest of them can't take it upon themselves to enforce those terms.

Also, it doesn't matter if Saddam's pockets are empty after he has been kicked out of school. He refused to submit to inspection - the terms set with every member of the group. By refusing to live up to his end (submit to inspection) he allowed the group memebers to refuse to live up to their end (leave him alone).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Treaty enforcement is.

Let's reduce this to a simple scenario.

There's a schoolyard bully who is taking everyone's lunch money. We'll call him Saddam. One day saddam picks on Kewait (one of the kids at the school) and decides to beat him up. Joe (US) gets ticked and jumps in to defend Kewait. Similarly Pippin (UK) and others chip in with the occational kick to the stomach as Saddam is betting pummeled. Kewait staggers off to class.

Saddam yells "Stop, I'll do anything just tell me what I have to do!".

Joe, Pippin, Dingo-Man, and now Francois and Hanz who have walked over to the scene and are ticked at Saddam too decide that they should set the terms for which they'll leave Saddam alone and let him go back to whatever it is he does when he's not taking money.

The group decides that Saddam has to open his pockets every day before school and during lunch so that they can make sure that he hasn't taken anyone's money. Saddam agrees.

The next day at lunch time Saddam refused to open his pockets for inspection by the group. Joe looks at Pippin, Dingo, Francois, Hanz and others and says "what are we going to do?". Francois says "nothing, I'm fine with it. He gave me some extra money today anyway." Hanz says "You know what, I don't care. I'm outta here. I hate you guys." Dingo says "Whatever Mate. I'm up for a fight, and then we'll put some shrimp on the barbee." Pippin says something non-committal.

Joe (and the others) let Saddam go as long as he promises to open his pockets tomorrow. But tomorrow comes and he doesn't... and the group doesn't want to do anything. Meanwhile people seem to be getting beaten up, and missing money. Saddam continues to refuse to open his pockets at lunch.

Finally Joe gets sick of it. Joe, Dingo, and Pippin go against the wishes of the group (to do nothing) and beat the crap out of Saddam. They then kick him out of school, so that he can never return (students can do that in this school).

Now I ask you, did Joe, have a right to get invovled when Hanz and Francois were not willing to jump in? Just because Hanz and Francois didn't want to enforce their part in the agreement, does that mean that Joe couldn't enforce his?

Saddam made an agreement with everyone in the group, that he would open his pockets. If one or two, or even the majority of the members don't want to enforce the terms - that doesn't mean that the rest of them can't take it upon themselves to enforce those terms.

Also, it doesn't matter if Saddam's pockets are empty after he has been kicked out of school. He refused to submit to inspection - the terms set with every member of the group. By refusing to live up to his end (submit to inspection) he allowed the group memebers to refuse to live up to their end (leave him alone).

That was a lovely story. More questions:

• Didn't Pippin's grandfather force Saddam's grandfather to give up a part of his house?
• Did Kewait engage in his own economic warfare by stealing candy from Saddam, and selling more candy than the Organization of the Candy Exporting Students' quota allowed? (which made it more difficult for Saddam to make money)
• Didn't Joe's best friend Margaret say to Saddam, Dingo, Pippin, Hanz, Francois, and Kewait that Joe has "no special defense or security committments to Kewait"?
• Or how about Joe's other best friend April? Didn't she say to Saddam et. al. that Joe has "no opinion on conflicts like Saddam's disagreement with Kewait"?

To answer yours:

Now I ask you, did Joe, have a right to get invovled when Hanz and Francois were not willing to jump in?

No. The right thing to do would be to find out why Hanz and Francois reneged on the contract. Surely there must be a reason for their dissent.

Just because Hanz and Francois didn't want to enforce their part in the agreement, does that mean that Joe couldn't enforce his?

Yes -- that's the diplomatic way to do things.

 

[Danoff]

That was a lovely story. More questions:

• Didn't Pippin's grandfather force Saddam's grandfather to give up a part of his house?
• Did Kewait engage in his own economic warfare by stealing candy from Saddam, and selling more candy than the Organization of the Candy Exporting Students' quota allowed? (which made it more difficult for Saddam to make money)
• Didn't Joe's best friend Margaret say to Saddam, Dingo, Pippin, Hanz, Francois, and Kewait that Joe has "no special defense or security committments to Kewait"?
• Or how about Joe's other best friend April? Didn't she say to Saddam et. al. that Joe has "no opinion on conflicts like Saddam's disagreement with Kewait"?

Uh... the schoolyard analogy is supposed to highlight the obvious, not analyze the details.

No. The right thing to do would be to find out why Hanz and Francois reneged on the contract. Surely there must be a reason for their dissent.

Supposing that Joe did that and didn't like the answer?

Yes -- that's the diplomatic way to do things.

So you think even though Joe and Saddam had an agreement, the he couldn't enforce his end of the agreement because it isn't diplomatic? Dimplomacy doesn't work if there isn't anything backing up the talk.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Uh... the schoolyard analogy is supposed to highlight the obvious, not analyze the details.

Perhaps...

Supposing that Joe did that and didn't like the answer?

Depends on the answer... who is Joe to judge whether the answer is "good" or not? Couldn't that be left up to vote on? If not, then could Joe ask someone not related to the agreement what they thought about the answers?

So you think even though Joe and Saddam had an agreement, the he couldn't enforce his end of the agreement because it isn't diplomatic?

Absolutely.

 

[Duke]

So you think even though Joe and Saddam had an agreement, the he couldn't enforce his end of the agreement because it isn't diplomatic? Dimplomacy doesn't work if there isn't anything backing up the talk.

Absolutely.

You scare me, deeply and sincerely.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You scare me, deeply and sincerely.

So why agree to anything, then? Why not just quit the UN and absolve oursleves from diplomacy altogether?

Besides, who cares about what other countries think. We know what's best for us and the rest the of the world.

If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.

 

[FoolKiller]

So why agree to anything, then? Why not just quit the UN and absolve oursleves from diplomacy altogether?

Because diplomacy works with people who use it properly. If when your agreement is betrayed you just say, "Oh well," and then shrug your shoulders you will get walked on by anyone who wants to abuse your trust. Countries with the most to lose without economic collapse (US) will get taken advantage of if there are no consequences for others who back out of the diplomatic talk.

Diplomacy will fail every now and then. Do you expect us to just ignore when that happens and make a new deal with those people?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because diplomacy works with people who use it properly. If when your agreement is betrayed you just say, "Oh well," and then shrug your shoulders you will get walked on by anyone who wants to abuse your trust. Countries with the most to lose (US) will get taken advantage of if there are no consequences for others who back out of the diplomatic talk.

Diplomacy will fail every now and then. Do you expect us to just ignore when that happens and make a new deal with those people?

No. I expect us to find out why others back out of the diplomatic talk.

 

[Duke]

No. I expect us to find out why others back out of the diplomatic talk.

So in other words, you expect us to be at the total mercy of every single nation on the face of the planet, because all they have to do to make us back down is disagree with us and walk out during negotiations?

I repeat: you scare me deeply. I'm really not sure what I think about you any more, but I probably would have a hard time saying it diplomatically.

 

[///M-Spec]

"Dingo-man"

I love it.

No. I expect us to find out why others back out of the diplomatic talk.

Brian, when was the last time you tried to give the IRS a hug instead of a W2 and got a heart-felt squeeze on the shoulder followed by the words "it's okay, we can talk about taxes whenever your're ready. Take your time," in return?


M