Going to War

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Ahh... Godwin´s Law invoked again!

Reminds me of the old days - 1995 - when I started posting on rec.sport.fencing, and almost everyone was a newbie. With so many newbies, Godwin´s Law got invoked left,right, and center so that difficult sitations arose with alarming regularity. (This was especially bad on the .alt NG´s, but r.s.f. had its share too) However, not everyone was a newbie - EDEW was already then an old net-veteran. Without him, a bunch of tangles would probably be unsorted still. I wonder what Swordman was doing then?

Have a nice time, and watch out for the wrath of the moderator! ;-)

Peter Gustafsson

[Jeric]

War!

Pity really, I'm being shipped to Iraq soon. Bad luck really.

[civiltech]

Our Prime Minister finally stated last week that Canada will not go to war in Iraq without UN approval. Period. And I am OK with that. We have been criticized for a number of weeks now that we were wishy washy, and didn't have a clear stance. Why were we procrastinating? We are one of the US's closest friends, and allies. We are their biggest trading partner, and they are our's. We don't want to lose future trade, and economic growth off the American's by standing against them. Let's face it: America is a super power not just because of it's military, but because it a very predominant economic power engine of the world. Everyone wants a piece of that pie.

We'll see if this effects some of our trade agreements. However, the US's recent treatment of our softwood lumber agreement, wheat, and yes even the potatoe's all under NAFTA has left a sour taste in Canadian's mouths. We think your country is great, but your present government isn't playing fair. I don't think relations between our two country's have been this low since Pierre Trudeau smacked your president accross the head back in the 70's. ( I might edit this remark later on...I bet it's a hot potatoe all in it's own.)

[civiltech]

Just a further note which really turns my stomach.

I know work for the local shcool board handling captial projects, etc. On a recent tour of one of our high schools, I almost laughed it was so angering:

Stopping by a portable, there were "George Bush=Terrorism" signs in the windows. And inside were posters of anti war propaganda. Including the one that mimicks Star War's with George Bush, etc. I'm sure everyone has seen it. How can a teacher have the guts to post this up in a public institution?

What really got me going was that another room later on was exactly the opposite. The teacher their was a pro-war supporter, and had all kinds of pro-war propoganda on the walls. And graffiti made by the kis supporting the war.

These wern't school projects. These were two teachers who are preaching their political views in the school system. Ensuring their is a next generation of NDP to keep Unions strong, and ****ty teachers employed.

Your right, it's unfortunate this isn't bizarre.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson

Ahh... Godwin´s Law invoked again!

What is Godwin's Law?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
self defense?? Iraq has certainly not attacked the US, nor are they a threat to us. even if they have WoMD (which they probably have some chemical, no nuclear, not sure about bio), they do not have delivery systems which can reach us. This does NOT fit the definition of self defense.

I disagree with you; I think there are plenty of delivery systems besides missiles. Waiting until Iraq HAS nuclear weapons is too long. This is where we disagree.

well, having absolutely no frame of reference to disagree with you, I will have to take your word on this.

I would expect no less.

and yet you have on multiple occasions expressed your trust for what the administration says. On multiple occasions, you have said things like "well, they are privy to information that we aren't, so they know more...." well, I am not so blindly accepting of propaganda.
-m

I do trust what the administration is. And why should we have all the information that they do? I think that trusting one's own government is logical, not "blindly accepting of propaganda" - so long as one considers whether the information presented makes sense, and is relatively reasonable. I think that it is in this case. If you disagree with me, so be it.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
I disagree with you; I think there are plenty of delivery systems besides missiles. Waiting until Iraq HAS nuclear weapons is too long. This is where we disagree.

who suggested sitting around and waiting until he HAS nuclear weapons? I suggest we do what we have been doing for the past 10 years or so: stop him from getting nuclear weapons through peaceful (relatively) means. not only are inspections cheaper, they are wholly adequate. As for your "other delivery systems", this gets back to my earlier point that the vast majority of INDEPENDANT experts (even those who support the war) agree that Hussein would NEVER give his weapons to terrorists. to do so would be to put his life and administration in the hands of psychopaths, and contrary to popular belief, he is NOT insane. He values his freedom and life too much to take that risk. Containment works, and does so without pissing as many people off. The real issue here is that our long term interests are NOT served by attacking Iraq. Such an attack will drive more support toward islamist extremists. not only will it swell the ranks of Al Queda, it will also raise the likelihood of islamist governments coming to power in the region.

I do trust what the administration is. And why should we have all the information that they do? I think that trusting one's own government is logical, not "blindly accepting of propaganda" - so long as one considers whether the information presented makes sense, and is relatively reasonable. I think that it is in this case. If you disagree with me, so be it.

but you have repeatedly accepted claims made by the administration which go contrary to expectation. for example, there has been no presented evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queda, and such a link is not logical due to their VERY disparate philosophies. my tendency is to not accept these claimsn without further evidence, as they seem very illogical. your tendency is to assume that the administration is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth despite a complete lack of evidence. Being willing to take somebody's word for something with NO evidence IS blind acceptance. that is the definition of it. I can't remember the last time you disagreed with or expressed skepticism about ANYTHING this administration has said. what is the last statement this administration made that you DIDN'T believe? given the amount of pure spin that this (any) government puts out, if you can't come up with one, its blind acceptance.

Also, why do you feel it is logical to trust our government? things like the Vietnam war, watergate, Iran Contra, and the actions of the CIA over the past half century (toppling governments, installing dictators, testing chemical agents on American citizens) do NOT engeandor trust. Mind you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist who inherently distrusts anything the government says. however, I certainly don't trust when they say something that doesn't make logical sense either.

-m

[Darion McNair]

who suggested sitting around and waiting until he HAS nuclear weapons? I suggest we do what we have been doing for the past 10 years or so: stop him from getting nuclear weapons through peaceful (relatively) means. not only are inspections cheaper, they are wholly adequate. As for your "other delivery systems", this gets back to my earlier point that the vast majority of INDEPENDANT experts (even those who support the war) agree that Hussein would NEVER give his weapons to terrorists. to do so would be to put his life and administration in the hands of psychopaths, and contrary to popular belief, he is NOT insane. He values his freedom and life too much to take that risk. Containment works, and does so without pissing as many people off.

Containment.....Saddam Hussein has already invaded two countries why should we try to contain him? And if we use the method of ‘containment’ not only will he keep producing WMD and hiding them, years from now he might just give them to terrorists to use against us. Why not? If he’s denying he has them now, who’s to say he won’t deny he ever gave them the weapons? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t care what the experts say, the man cannot be trusted. I think that is evident by now.


I believe we should keep an open ear to the international community but not in this instance. This is a matter of national security. Keeping these dangerous weapons out of this man’s hands is the ONLY priority, not making sure France and China and Russia are happy about the way we go about it. We have asked him nicely to get rid of the weapons that we know he has and he claims they do not exist. You are so quick not to trust our own government but we have absolutely no reason to trust this man. Why would he suddenly decide to destroy all of those weapons like he claims he did? He’s a power monger in the first place and you think he’s going to get rid of some of the very things that give him that power?

but you have repeatedly accepted claims made by the administration which go contrary to expectation. for example, there has been no presented evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queda, and such a link is not logical due to their VERY disparate philosophies. my tendency is to not accept these claimsn without further evidence, as they seem very illogical. your tendency is to assume that the administration is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth despite a complete lack of evidence. Being willing to take somebody's word for something with NO evidence IS blind acceptance.

In regards to our own government, President Bush has to be trusted. Why? Because the American elections gave him that power. He is now “The Leader of the Free World” and has the authority to act in a way that he deems right for the country. I agree that not all administrations that have set up shop in the White House have been respectable. But so far this man has given me no reason not to trust him. I can think of previous presidents that have lacked the.....moral standing......to justify trusting them in the first place. But from what I’ve seen so far, this man has given me no reason not to trust him. He has intel and is aware of things we can’t even think of. And I trust him to deal with it. Neither you nor I have the proper clearance to make informed decisions on those matters. What would happen if the highly classified information was release to the public? To start with, informants would promptly be executed and important information would likely fall into the hands of our enemies. And those enemies wouldn’t think twice about using it against us at some point in time. I don’t want to be stressed over that sort of thing, we have elected officials to do that kind of stuff for us.

[135711]

yes, stressed is the word of the day, or let's say, perhaps even the year. On a personal note, this has affected everyone, I was having a cola drink with what I thought were nice people and one of them, smacked me on the front of the shoulder. I really couldn't believe it.

now i'll tell you guys something scary: the us has produced weapons and has been selling them to the enemy of my enemy who's not really a friend at all for many years. An example of that is Turkey [opps! sorry], anyway, we've sold turkey nice missles for a long time, why? they were our friends. Part of the overall strategy, I believe in the middle east, has been to take turns being our friend in order to buy goodies like missles and so forth, then when they have the goods, we're their enemy. Of course! we're the evil empire demons who made this junk to begin with. It's like the person who sees something, they know it's not good, but they decide to buy it, because They are good and have 'better control' over it. The answer was, at one time, to become their friend, through exchanges, first through student exchanges and next through exchanges of expertise such as vista or peace corps, sending in nurses to help developing countries with some personnel shortages, What happened was that some of those programs were jeapordized by local populations who viewed the united states as being intrusive, and can we blame them? not really, our cultural mores are different. They became frightened by what they perceived to be a lack of personal morals in our society and decided to toss us out, send us home, and shore up the borders. They don't want us there. And because they are so strong about it, and will not budge on it, they scare the heck out of europe, who doesn't want to take a chance in backing us up.

Well, so after my new 'friend' tried to swack my on the shoulder because he really didn't understand what i was saying [he was a little drunk], i went into the library and sat with a newspaper and yapped a bit with another person.

Threre really doesn't seem to be an answer, except total disarmement worldwide. Take all of the weapons in the earth, put them in their huge rocket ships and send the whole thing crashing onto mars or some 'melting' planet that they're always on the lookout for. The scientific and political community is so paranoid about sending this crap away, that we're stuck with it. Antoher thing that has me personally po'd off is the manner of dress. We live in a country where a person should have the freedom to wear clothing that is of their personal choice. I tend to wear clothing that is modest, I keep just about everything covered, my skirts tend to be long, and everytime i wear my dam long skirt, some ah yahoo jerk smacks into me delibertly, why? because they think i'm from the middle east. i've worn longer skirts when i hit mid-twenties, and i feel more comfortable, i also have a middle-eastern look, and many people believe i'm indian or saudie, so i get a lot of negative reactions which i don't appreciate, but i'll tell you it keeps me very sympathetic towards people who are in the minority here and who don't have anyone to back them up. Many people from the middle east came here precisely because of the oppression they encountered while living in their home countries.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Darion McNair
Containment.....Saddam Hussein has already invaded two countries why should we try to contain him? And if we use the method of ‘containment’ not only will he keep producing WMD and hiding them, years from now he might just give them to terrorists to use against us. Why not? If he’s denying he has them now, who’s to say he won’t deny he ever gave them the weapons? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t care what the experts say, the man cannot be trusted. I think that is evident by now.

Yes, he HAS invaded two countries. why did he feel justified to do so? oh yeah! because WE WERE SUPPORTING HIM (in actuality in the case of Iran, and in his perception in the case of Kuwait). I don't think bringing up the Iran-Iraq war is a very good way to make an argument for a US invasion.

I believe we should keep an open ear to the international community but not in this instance. This is a matter of national security. Keeping these dangerous weapons out of this man’s hands is the ONLY priority, not making sure France and China and Russia are happy about the way we go about it. We have asked him nicely to get rid of the weapons that we know he has and he claims they do not exist. You are so quick not to trust our own government but we have absolutely no reason to trust this man. Why would he suddenly decide to destroy all of those weapons like he claims he did? He’s a power monger in the first place and you think he’s going to get rid of some of the very things that give him that power?

this is EXACTLY the type of situation the international community should have a say in. International law is VERY clear on this point: Use of force is ONLY permitted when a country is acting in self defense (against a specific and direct threat), or specifically sanctioned by the security council. the former is not true, according to every nation in the world. even the US government doesn't claim its acting in self defense. the argument the US makes is that 1441 IS explicit permission for use of force. the majority of the council disagrees. that, by definition, means that the majority of the council is NOT explicitly okaying the use of force. that makes this an illegal action. Contrary to popular belief, might does NOT make right. more importantly, if the government would look past the very short term, it would see that this war is NOT in our long term interest. our long term interests are served best by extending olive branches to the arab world. contrary to American propaganda, I doubt the Iraqi people are excited at the thought of invasion. more importantly, it is fairly clear by the less than 5% approval rating in recent polls that the rest of the arab world will NOT be pleased by this. One of the primary tennets of fighting terrorists is that they cannot be beaten (held off, maybe, but certainly not beaten) by conventional military action. the best (and arguably only) way to beat a terrorist organization is to cut its base of support. the best way to do that is certainly not to piss off the vast majority of the Arab world. As for his "claim" that he has destroyed them, I agree its rather specious. however, the solution is to PROVE HIM WRONG. if said weapons exist, the inspectors should be able to find ONE. if they do, those who now oppose the war would quickly change their tune. to use his denial as an argument that he has them and just isn't cooperating is a logical fallacy. according to you, he has two choices: admit that he has them and is thus in material breach and subject to invasion (because the other countries would quickly get on board), or say he doesn't have them and be subject to invasion due to his lack of cooperation. the LOGICAL way to go about inspections is to have the burden of proof on the inspectors. after all, as difficult as it is to prove that he has them, it is not impossible. it is, however, impossible for him to prove to us that he doesn't have them. difficult is better than impossible.

In regards to our own government, President Bush has to be trusted. Why? Because the American elections gave him that power. He is now “The Leader of the Free World” and has the authority to act in a way that he deems right for the country. I agree that not all administrations that have set up shop in the White House have been respectable. But so far this man has given me no reason not to trust him. I can think of previous presidents that have lacked the.....moral standing......to justify trusting them in the first place. But from what I’ve seen so far, this man has given me no reason not to trust him. He has intel and is aware of things we can’t even think of. And I trust him to deal with it. Neither you nor I have the proper clearance to make informed decisions on those matters. What would happen if the highly classified information was release to the public? To start with, informants would promptly be executed and important information would likely fall into the hands of our enemies. And those enemies wouldn’t think twice about using it against us at some point in time. I don’t want to be stressed over that sort of thing, we have elected officials to do that kind of stuff for us.

As I said, I don't inherently distrust what bush says. neither do I inherently trust it. if he makes a statement which makes no logical sense and promises evidence which is then never forthcoming, I am not likely to accept it. As for whether he deserves my trust, I think much of his background, including his membership of the board of trustees of a company which pulled an enron and his ties to the oil industry, makes me skeptical of him. I think that is VERY reasonable. that being said, I'm not saying that I don't trust most of the adminstrations statements. there are, however, some which I don't. that is the difference. when I see one I think doesn't make sense, I don't take his word for it. I think our history has shown that the public has a tendency to dupe itself whenever it doesn't question the adminstration. All administrations should be subject to scrutiny.

-m

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Containment works, and does so without pissing as many people off.

Then THAT is where we disagree. I don't think that containment works at all.

but you have repeatedly accepted claims made by the administration which go contrary to expectation. for example, there has been no presented evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queda, and such a link is not logical due to their VERY disparate philosophies.

...

Also, why do you feel it is logical to trust our government? things like the Vietnam war, watergate, Iran Contra, and the actions of the CIA over the past half century (toppling governments, installing dictators, testing chemical agents on American citizens) do NOT engeandor trust.-m

Show me anywhere that I've believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together. I've never said such a thing. Why? I think the evidence is shaky.

I give this administration the benefit of the doubt. Why not? All the incidents (or alleged incidents) that you cite are of other administrations. Some of those I would trust less than a lot of foreign powers (JFK, for example, I would have believed France over). Lack of evidence? I think you missed a very interesting speech by one Mr. Powell.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Then THAT is where we disagree. I don't think that containment works at all.

well, the last DECADE or so would seem to disagree with you.

Show me anywhere that I've believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together. I've never said such a thing. Why? I think the evidence is shaky.

shaky evidence??? like what? I have seen NO evidence, shaky or otherwise!

I give this administration the benefit of the doubt. Why not? All the incidents (or alleged incidents) that you cite are of other administrations. Some of those I would trust less than a lot of foreign powers (JFK, for example, I would have believed France over). Lack of evidence? I think you missed a very interesting speech by one Mr. Powell.

I find it interesting that the one administration you cite as untrustworthy is a Democratic one. I think your inherent bias is showing through. afterall, there are certainly more instances of dishonesty in the Nixon whitehouse than in the Kennedy white house. mind you, I'm not saying that the Kennedy white house didn't have their share of scandals, just that it is telling that THEY are the ones you chose to single out. missed powell's speech? no, of course not. Its just that I, like much of the rest of the world, was THOROUGHLY underwhelmed. interpretation and speculation notwithstanding, there was no significant new evidence presented. The fact that you think that speech was at all informative is further evidence, IMO, that you give this administration WELL more leeway and trust than ANY administration deserves.

btw, which of my incidents are alleged??? they are all well accepted historical facts!

-m

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

For those americans who think that the non-US world should not be considered in this topic, unless they side with USA, I offer the following thing to mull on:

History shows, that not matter how powerful in their heyday, almost all superpowers will go weak, given a few centuries. Rome, and China in its various incarnations, are the abberations - they stayed/have stayed afloat more than a millennium.

I personally think that it is a fairly safe bet that the USA will be a 2nd tier power (or lower), given 500 or 700 years.

Then what? Do you think that this little spat will be forgotten? Probably not. In the present post-jugoslavian mess, a battle in 1389 was used to inspire hate, and the whole thing goes back to 370 AD (about) when Rome broke up into West Rome and East Rome. There are numerous other examples that old grudges can live on for many centuries.

The present administration is setting up USA for a situation where it will got much less help, once it needs it and can not count on its own might. Either GB II does not care about this, he has not thought about it, or he has been told about it but can not grasp the concept. I do not know which alternative I dislike the most.

A recent editorial wrote about "Why does the world not side with USA" (Expletives below are included to catch the general tenor of the editorial) I could post the link, but the gist of it was: Once you p*ss people off one time too much, they will not side with you no matter what. The list went like this: Kyoto protocol, International war criminal court, antimissile defense shield (more examples possible) - all instance where the present US administration has showed that they don´t give a d*mn about the wishes of other countries, unless they happen to coincide with those of the US. administration. The world is wondering: If we do not brake now, then what be the limit to what the USA will force us to do? Will there be any? While the US. constitution is based on the principe of checks and balances, the present US. administration does not seem to think that any such are necessary or beneficial in the relation between USA and other countries. So far the editorial. (I do recommend reading editorial of papers with varied biases. Since there is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source, reading several and checking for discrepancies reveals *some* biases/omissions, and thus provides a first-order error check.)

While it is obviously clear that USA presently, and for the foreseeable future, has the means to force its wishes on the rest of the world, this is a self-limiting strategy. The more this strategy is used, the less viable all other strageies will become, forcing USA to expend a lot of energy, or giving up its wishes in arenas in which it is not a top power, and does use force from other arenas to exert sideways influence (i.e. FIE, among others)

Mull of that one.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Darion McNair]

this is EXACTLY the type of situation the international community should have a say in. International law is VERY clear on this point: Use of force is ONLY permitted when a country is acting in self defense (against a specific and direct threat), or specifically sanctioned by the security council. the former is not true, according to every nation in the world. even the US government doesn't claim its acting in self defense. the argument the US makes is that 1441 IS explicit permission for use of force. the majority of the council disagrees.

Resolution 1441 warned of serious consequences. What do you consider serious? More inspections? We have already established that they do not work. The UN rarely if ever sanctions military action to begin with, Kosovo is only one example. While the country was invaded by a tyrant and mass graves were dug after a campaign of mass murder the UN did nothing. Many countries in the UN don’t want us to invade Iraq because they have financial interests. To that I would say-too bad. If the threat is not important enough now it will be in the future. We are only taking the action that should have been taken years ago. Instead, Saddam broke resolution after resolution. He snubbed his nose at 17 of them after he agreed to get rid of the weapons. 17 resolutions that the majority of the UN does not seem to care about. I feel that unless it backs up its resolutions with force, it is useless.


On a side note, if the situation was turned around I would feel the same way. If an enemy has not complied with a cease-fire agreement after repeated orders to comply. If our country had financial interests in the offending country I would quickly be thinking of how we could earn the money back, or how to get the resources from somewhere else. I wouldn’t deny the country the right it has to make the offending nation comply just because I invested money in that country. These countries are too busy trying to cover their own arses that they refuse to see the facts of the matter. The facts that state he has been ordered to comply and is not complying. Diplomacy has FAILED with Hussein, time to use force. Mind you, diplomacy WAS option one, and Saddam blew it.

the LOGICAL way to go about inspections is to have the burden of proof on the inspectors. after all, as difficult as it is to prove that he has them, it is not impossible. it is, however, impossible for him to prove to us that he doesn't have them. difficult is better than impossible.

The burden of proof is not on the inspectors. I don’t agree with that at all. He has the weapons he has been ordered by the international community to disarm. Why should it be the inspectors job to find them. We might as well make them Officers of Search and Seizure or something but not inspectors. As inspectors they are to oversee compliance, not find them when Saddam refuses to hand them over.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Darion McNair
Resolution 1441 warned of serious consequences. What do you consider serious? More inspections? We have already established that they do not work. The UN rarely if ever sanctions military action to begin with, Kosovo is only one example. While the country was invaded by a tyrant and mass graves were dug after a campaign of mass murder the UN did nothing. Many countries in the UN don’t want us to invade Iraq because they have financial interests. To that I would say-too bad. If the threat is not important enough now it will be in the future. We are only taking the action that should have been taken years ago. Instead, Saddam broke resolution after resolution. He snubbed his nose at 17 of them after he agreed to get rid of the weapons. 17 resolutions that the majority of the UN does not seem to care about. I feel that unless it backs up its resolutions with force, it is useless.

What I expect when non compliance is found is for the security council to pass another resolution DEFINING the consequences (note I said when it is found. according to the inspectors, though he is not being as cooperative as he should, they do not yet feel he is in non-compliance) Serious? a tightening of the embargo would be rather serious. A blockade would be rather serious. I'm not making a judgement call as to whether or not they SHOULD back earlier resolutions. I am simply saying that without a further resolution EXPLICITLY okaying use of force, an action is illegal under international law.

The burden of proof is not on the inspectors. I don’t agree with that at all. He has the weapons he has been ordered by the international community to disarm. Why should it be the inspectors job to find them. We might as well make them Officers of Search and Seizure or something but not inspectors. As inspectors they are to oversee compliance, not find them when Saddam refuses to hand them over.

so, you feel that the burden SHOULD not be on the inspectors. well, the burden CANNOT be on Iraq! Cannot tends to trum should not. the issue is that he can't prove a negative. he says he doesn't have them, we say he does. the only way to prove one way or the other is to FIND THE WEAPONS!

-m

[Darion McNair]

I appologize, I seemed to have confused my words there. But still I think you understood what I meant. I do not agree that the burden of proof should be placed on the inspectors. That option is not very realistic in my opinion. Saddam has an obligation to the international community to disarm.

But still we disagree....oh well

[135711]

Question:
I never understood the weapons inspection thing, it dosen't make sense! no-one inspects our stuff, so, why do we have the right to inspect others?