Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KingSparta]

Well when they get done if the US runs a pipe line to the US i will agree with you and send you some of our finest Billy Beer.

If I am right you will need to send me a bottle of your finest beer (in a bottle).

[sraymond]

JimH:  I'm waiting with bated breath for something good to come out of this...  but I am not *holding* my breath!

Everyone having a legitimate opinion on this topic should at least know a little about the U.S. national security strategy.  For the most part, the strategy can be summarized by the desire to 1) enhace security, 2) promote democracy, and 3) promote prosperity.

Iraq fits the bill on perhaps all three items.

Then another thing everyone with a legitimate opinion on this topic should know about is the theory of "just war".  I'm talking about justum bellum, jus ad bellum, and jus in bello.

And finally, another thing everyone with a legitimate opinion on this topic should know about is the motivation behind international law and what makes each nation a willing participant.

It has also been my long-standing observance that many people think an "entitled" opinion is a "justified" opinion.  Alas, they are not the same.

There's often too much passion on this Iraq issue for constructive conversation.

Scott-

[michel]

For the most part, the strategy can be summarized by the desire to 1) enhace security, 2) promote democracy, and 3) promote prosperity.

How are you sure that is not another "entitled opinion" ?

[JimH]

There's often too much passion on this Iraq issue for constructive conversation.

I agree with you Scott, but so far people have managed to make some interesting points here without too much damage being done.

[fex]

...And finally, another thing everyone with a legitimate opinion on this topic should know about is the motivation behind international law and what makes each nation a willing participant....

"International Law"?.

US is kicking this with both feets in this second. So forget about this. (I'm a lawyer...).

[michel]

There's often too much passion on this Iraq issue for constructive conversation.

If there was not passion for such a topic I would desesperate of this world. And as JimH said nobody has been killed here (not yet  ).

[JorgeGVB]

ph_bradley  

Many of your points are way off base....

<<<the only reason the US bypassed the UN is because a new resolution would have been slammed back in its face. >>>

No, France would not negotiate after voting for UN Resolution 1441 and said they would veto any other resolutions under all circumstances.   BTW, Pres Clinton also bypassed the UN when it came to Kosovo, but that did not seem to be a problem for France.  Russia was going to veto that resolution.  So was Kosovo illegitimate too?  The UN has only supported war twice in over 50 years.

<<<From that high up, how can you see if the thing you are aiming at is a terrorist HQ or a civilian hospital, or a school, etc etc... >>>

The majority of the weapons dropped by US aircraft today are GPS guided weapons and hit exact targets with remarkable accuracy.  Ironically, more civilians will be killed by the GPS jamming devices that Russia sold to Hussein.

<<<If the USA weren't so isolated surrounded by two massive oceans, perhaps it wouldnt be so oblivious to the consequences of war>>>

2.2 million Americans died in WWII, many defending Europe.  I think we understand war just fine.  

<<<Why is it an illegitimate war? Because from my point of view (UK) it is: a) undemocratic. Why did Blair take ABSOLUTELY no notice of the 1 million+ protesters here? >>>

Did you know there was an overwhelming amount of protesters in the US during WWII who didn't want the US to get involved in what was thought of as a European problem and the US should remain isolationist?  Just think how good your German would be today if FDR listened to the protesters.

<<<But I think that since the war against terrorism is vengeance for 911>>>

Since the Iranian crisis in 1979 the US had done very little to defend herself after terrorist attacks.  All that change on 9/11.  US President's will never look at rogue nations and countries that turn a blind eye to terrrorism the same way again.  If Germany or France face similiar attacks, they will feel the same way.  

[ph_bradley]

North Korea will be next, anyway. America can't fight wars on three fronts at the same time - against Irak, against terrorism and against NK.
I think it's very interesting that in a recent poll in the US, 40% of those polled now believe that Saddam, not Osama, is to blame for Sep11. Maybe, at the root of all this, it is people like that who really are to blame for 911. Why did nobody look at the cause of anti-US terrorism, rather than the vector for it (in this case the angry Islamists in the Boeings).

And no, I wasn't on the march. It wasn't quite like voter apathy: I had realised by that time that if Blair was ready to lie down kingdom and country for Bush like he owned it, a march, no matter how big, wouldn't do anything to stop him. Besides, at the time, they were still considering a war made legitimate by the international country. I have no problem with a UN-backed war - in that case, its a common decision, with responsibility shared between all the countries in the UN, and its sets a very good example. However, I did go on the recent student protests because by that time Bush and Blair had already bypassed the UN and therefore in my eyes committed the crime.

I disagree with a lot of the tree-hugging hippies at the original mass-march because their actions are just a knee-jerk reaction to a politician using the word 'war'. And that puts them on the same low level as all the fervently pro-war activists who just had a knee-jerk reaction to the media.

[JimH]

ph_bradley,
I edited your post to tone it down a little.  

No matter what you think of our president or your prime minister, they deserve more respect.  They have had to make some extremely difficult decisions.  There were extremely negative consequences possible no matter what they chose to do.

[ph_bradley]

No, my point about the UN is valid. And resolution 15 was passed a very long time ago, in what were certainly very different circumstances. The thing that annoys me about pro-war arguments being used here is that they are almost all, apart from the humanitairan ones, completely out of contemporary context and therefore invalid.

If Britain faces similar attacks, it will KNOW why.

Also: how many people who fought in WW2 are still around?? So are their experiences still relevant? Lets be honest here. How much of an effect did the fighting in europe have on the civilians and the policy-makers?? diddly squat. They just listened to reports on the radio and watched newsreels in exactly the same way as you watch SkyNews or CNN today. YOu, the richest nation in the world, had no economic kickback from the war, no rebuilding of your homes to do, etc etc. So no, i dont think your point about american involvement in WW2 is a valid one. You have never actually been under real military threat, the closest having been the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Thats the point I make. The experience of the US soldiers was COMPLETELY and utterly different to those of every other european soldiers anyway - you had the perfect army, facing a starving, old/young and thoroughly demoralised german army. your main concern was Japan. I dont question the morals of your involvement at all - even today im extremely grateful for it, and i think that so will be the Irakis. But that's the ONLY pro, and the cons of an illegitimate war COMPLETELY outnumber it.

[JimH]

ph,
You're badly misinformed if you think that WWII had little effect on the U.S.  I had friends who had no fathers because they were killed in the war.

I'm closing this.  

Jim