Nobody can tell me...

[strk]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, what Im saying is that congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq.

You are trying to find some qualifiers that infringes on that right, trying to interpret it to mean something more/less/whatever.

This is quite normal when a layman is trying to read a legal document, I cant tell you how many times guys like you show up at court thinking they are Perry Mason or whatever...but it doesnt make it any less annoying.

Wasnt there another act that specifically gave him power to invade Iraq?

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Originally posted by Toad
Nuke, the lesson I took from VietNam was that you can't "make other people free"...

Nice to ear this thought process from an American. A welcomed change.

[Toad]

As I pointed out, I've held that view since 1975; nothing new here.

Don't be confused, however. I still believe there are things worth fighting for, worth dying for.

John Stuart Mill said it quite well:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

[AKIron]

While I agree with you in a sense Toad, as a Christian I believe that real freedom wasn't fought for or earned by any of us.

One does have to choose it though.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Shuckins
1.  You keep rattling on about the U.S. invading a "sovereign nation."  How does Iraq fit that description?  Nearly 70% of the population, counting both Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds, were disenfranchised and subject to mass murder if they raised an eyebrow in protest.

Then those 70% should have revolted and thrown out the 30% who wanted Saddam.  

And don't tell me: "But Saddam had all the tanks...Saddam had all the guns."  We all watch in Iraq everyday the level of frustration that a determined group of resistance fighters can impose on a stronger force.  And it seems every freaking Iraqi household has an AK-47 (BTW, the US is only limiting them to ONE per household)...and every other household has RPGs!

Plus, Saddam's army was made up of conscripts...if a majority revolt had started nationwide (not just in Basra) then there certainly would have been some very well armed revolutionaries from conscripts changing allegiance.

Originally posted by Shuckins
2.  You stated that the ARVN were unworthy of our help and our blood because they did not fight ferociously enough for their freedom.  Following that line of reasoning then, do you think the French deserved our help in 1944?

The French were conquered in an invasion.  ARVN was fighting a civil war.  Big difference.

Originally posted by Shuckins
3.  Don't you think your collective condemnation of the ARVN troops is unfair?  It's a little hard to give throat to lusty battle cries when one lives with the fear of North Vietnamese reprisals against one's family.  This would especially be true of those troops recruited from farming villages.  

His collective condemnation is unfair to the few who realized that they were fighting for their freedom.  Vietnam was a civil war.  If the South Vietnamese were that concerned about their freedom, it would have been the North Vietnamese families who should have been concerned about reprisals for having sons/daughters in the VietCong.

Originally posted by Shuckins
4.  You act as if you think preemptive war were a new concept.  Nations have launched preemptive wars to eliminate threats as far back as the time of the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt.

And generally, preemptive strikes are considered aggressive...like when the Japanese preemptively struck Pearl Harbor.  I personally don't prefer the US to be considered aggressive.

Originally posted by Shuckins
5.  Bush and Powell testified that all the evidence gathered by intelligence sources indicated that Saddam was developing wmds.  They never said that it was an iron-clad certainty that the weapons were there.  Were you not listening when they listed other, equally important reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

Actually, they did.  The Administration said they knew where the WMD were located (Rumsfield: "...in and around Tekrit"), they said they knew what Saddam had.  Liars or incompetents...you choose.

Those "equally important reasons" were not the ones that convinced a majority of Congress to give the President authority to invade.  It was the WMD factor.

Originally posted by Shuckins
6.  Don't you think that Saddam needed to be deposed?  Do his attempts to destabilize the region and his crimes of genocide count for nothing?

7.  The U.N. had given every indication that, despite it's own resolutions to the contrary, it was going to do nothing about Saddam.  If not the U.N. then who?  Why not the United States?

My wallet cannot afford to give freedom to every person on the planet who lives under a despot.  I'm sorry...I'm too much of an Ayn Rand Objectivist to be that altruistic.  I would be willing to fight and die for my freedom and the freedom of my progeny.  That is the price I am willing to pay for mine and my own.  A price the majority of the Iraqi people were not willing to pay themselves, but were more than happy to have us pay for them.

Currently, you and I as taxpayers owe $900 on average each for the Iraq War to date.  That does not include interest.  That is not the final cost to each of us.  That is $900 out of my pocket to give WELFARE to a bunch of Iraqis...some of whom are killing an American per day to show their gratitude for what my $900 has done for them.

I would have liked to have spent my $900 on a lot of other things other than to give the Iraqi people freedom.  I would have liked to have seen some of the $117 Billion war budget spent on keeping US airliners safe from Stinger-type attacks...I would have liked some of that $117B spent to make airports safer without slowing me down in long lines to get to my plane...I would have liked some to have been spent on making our borders more secure.  Those things would have made me feel safer.  A war in Iraq has been a perfect terrorist recruiting drive...and that makes me feel less safe.

[Toad]

Iron, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's."



There's the freedom of/in this world and another type in the one hereafter.

Mill was right about the situation here, IMO.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Toad
Iron, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's."



There's the freedom of/in this world and another type in the one hereafter.

Mill was right about the situation here, IMO.

I reconsidered, see my edit. Before anyone can be free they must first choose freedom.

[AKIron]

Not all enslavement is obvious though. Sometimes it's very subtle. Take communism for example. Until someone experiences freedom from communism how would they know there is something better?

[Toad]

I actually sat down here to reply to Shuckins myself.

I just got XP going well although I'm not totally "reloaded" yet.

So, let me add a few things to what Crow said:

1. Iraq fits the desecription of "sovereign nation" very well. What organization was formed to provide a forum for sovereign nations to resolve their differences? What type of nation does the UN recognize and admit? Is Iraq a member of the UN? Any other questions?

At the time of the American Revolution, what percentage of the population voted for the English King? Remember "no taxation without represenatation?" The punishment for dumping tea into Boston harbor was military in nature, wasn't it? The beginning of a war, you might even say.

2. What Crow said pretty well sums up my position. We OWED the French. They were conquered by a "rogue nation" of the worst sort. I had no problem with going to help the Kuwaitis either.

3. "Collective condemnation"

Toad:

Ask your father about the ARVN troops overall. Sure, there were specific units that were good, even great. But ask him what he thought about having a regular ARVN unit protecting his flanks.

You need to hit the books, Senna. The bottom line is the NV's wanted it far more badly than the SV's.

I stand by that; make of it what you will.

As for lusty battle cries, give me an example of any country where the people viiolently overthrew a despot where the families of the revolutionaries were not at risk from the "government".


4. Dang you Crow!

Yeah, preemptive war is nothing new, but it's not something the US is known for in the post 1900 era. It's not in our present national character nor is it something we should take pride in, IMO.

As Crow says, reflect on Pearl Harbor. From the Japanese point of view, it was an operation in the same vein as our recent invasion of Iraq. They saw us as a "clear and present danger" and chose to prempt us in the Pacific. They even attacked without declaring war. This is something you wish us to emulate?

Not I.

5. Yeah, they said the weapons were there. That's was the thrust of Powell's speech before the UN. That the WMD was there and posed a clear and present danger to world peace.

6. I'm glad SH was deposed. I despise his genocide.

HOWEVER, he should have been deposed by Iraqis, not the sons and daughters of the US.

I'm sorry, I don't think "Iraqi freedom" is worth the life of 1 US soldier in and of itself. That's a job for Iraqi boys and girls. As it is, we've lost 800+ of our best in the hope that the people of Iraq seize the opportunity to break with 1000 years of Muslim history and tradition. Pretty risky bet, IMO. Not worth 800 lives, not worth the sorrow of 800 American mothers, or wives or who knows how many American children.

That's my opinion.

7. The UN clearly was going to do nothing.

However, what have WE done?

None of you that have engaged me on this.... and I know this is a suprising positon for me to take, hard for some of you to accept... has been able to answer this:

The WMD

A) were non-existent and never were there

B) are still there but we don't know where they are

C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizations


Which is it? Or do you have another answer?

After picking your answer, explain how that justifies invading a sovereign nation and losing 800+ of your finest citizens while saying "mission accomplished".

We HAVE NOT "ensured Iraq did not have WMD and/or banned weapons"; they may still be buried in the desert 1/2 mile from that MiG for all you and I know. And they may dig them up and "get even" as soon as we leave. It's unprovable at this point; we found essentially NOTHING.


In short, IMO, we didn't accomplish ANYTHING with respect to the reason we gave for invading a sovereign nation... for making an attack not all that dissimilar in "reason" than the Japanese attack on Pearl.

Anwer that and show me where I'm wrong.

As you know, I'm always willing to debate.  

[Toad]

Ah, Curly... but like the animals in Animal Farm who read "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others", they may not have known freedom but their humanity told them immediately that "THAT ain't right!".

They may not have know of something better but they intrinsically knew injustice.

[AKIron]

I agree the mission is not yet accomplished. There must be an accounting of the WMD we know that he had. But, we were patient with SH for 12 years, we can be patient a while longer, imo.

[Toad]

I think that's a forlorn hope. AFAIK, we're not even really looking very hard for it in Iraq anymore.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Toad
Ah, Curly... but like the animals in Animal Farm who read "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others", they may not have known freedom but their humanity told them immediately that "THAT ain't right!".

They may not have know of something better but they intrinsically knew injustice.

Hey, I'm much better looking than Curly.

I dunno Toad. Communism looks pretty good on paper. How else could it have fooled so many millions of people? No one is advantaged due to the luck of birth. Where's the injustice in that?

 I only debate this with you 'cause you mentioned Vietnam. Certainly the South Vietnamese weren't up to striving for our ideals of freedom. But what did the average Vietnamese know about freedom and democracy? I'm not sure I agree that we all have an innate sense of injustice but if we do it doesn't mean we will intrinsically know what freedom is.

[NUKE]

Toad

To compair our attack on Iraq with the Japanese attack on the US is way off the mark. The Japanses had been invading countries and expanding for years and saw the US as the thing that stood in the way of their conquest. The US did not threaten Japan, we merely were seen as the only possible obsticle to their greedy, bloody expansion.

The WMD

A) were non-existent and never were there

B) are still there but we don't know where they are

C) are in Syria, where the government is very chummy with known Islamic terrorist organizati

A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for

B: who knows if they are still there? I know that Saddam has no chance at using or rebuilding them. I know that instead of the UN getting close to declairing Iraq in full compliance without verifiying what happened to tons of WMD, we are on the ground there looking for them, not Hanx Blix

C: If they are in Syria, then that means Iraq did have WMD which alone justified the war.

When you remarked that you can't "make people be free", no one said that here, but look at Japan and Germany. Both fought like mad to fend the allies off, yet the citizens did little or nothing to fight for their freedom. Both are had been given the chance at freedom and both became free.

In Japan's case, they are a society 1000's of years old like Iraq and maybe twice as fanatic. I see no reason that Iraq cannot be free and have a healthy, rational society. I have know many Iraqis....they are not stupid and they are not fanatics. They are like you and I.

I believe we where completely justified in invading Iraq. They never complied with the inspectors and never would have.

Saddam could never be trusted to be left alone after the UN declared Iraq compliant...... and the UN was prepaired to declair Iraq compliant without accounting for tons of WMD. You say they may be in Syria? That's another matter but, two of your three choices assume Iraq had them. What do you think we should have done?

Toad, you may not think so but I fully believe our war against Iraq was justified based on the unknown state of their WMD and weapons programs. I fully believe that this is a watershed event for the good in the middle east on many levels.

The 800 plus Americans did not die for no reason, They may go down in history as the people who helped bring democracy to the Middle east......even though that was not our main goal.

Our main goal was to ensure Saddam and Iraq did not have WMD. You say they may be hidden? Well if they are, we have OUR people there looking for them, not Hans Blix and the clowns at the UN. If some got to Syria, what does that tell you? It tells me that Saddam had WMD and probably got them to Syria when he realized the US was serious, which tells me that at the very least, we took care of the Iraq threat.

It's not over either. We are not leaving unless that country is stable no matter what some are saying about Iraq having the choice to make us leave.

It's war and it's never nice, but what we did was justified and it will pay off many times over in my opinion. Why be so short sighted? Good things can and will come of this...things worth fighing for now rather than later.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by NUKE
A: it is a fact they had WMD and that not all were acounted for

One comment on the "not all accounted for" phrase that has been used so much by the hawks:  Consider exactly what that phrase means.  We had no way of knowing exactly how much chemical/bio agents were produced by Iraq.  We have a excellent idea the maximum capacity for manufacture...so we know the highest he could have aquired.  But the number cited by the Administration as the "unaccounted" weapons is an estimate.  It is an estimate based on as many factors as could be considered in the estimate model.  HOWEVER, we know our intelligence was not perfect therefore the model is not perfect.  All we know is that we estimated how much we thought he should have and asked to show what why that estimate was wrong.  

Well you know what...Iraq is a 3rd world country.  It is not like they had the excellent level of control over their weapons that the US does...and even the US has lost some pretty important assets and could not account for their whereabouts.  It is unlikely they could have ever hoped to account for each chemical artillery shell that they fired during their war with Iran.

It is a fact that they had WMD...in 1990...14 years ago.  We know how much we distroyed for them after 1991.  But know one has any idea how much was used/disgarded/lost prior to that.  And since they had no idea, they could not "account for them."