THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

hobitbob wrote:

A guilty scumbag who was NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES[/i]. We, the American citizenry, are responsible for the deaths in Iraq by our failure to control a government that claims to be representative of the American people.

Good afternoon Bob. It seems to me; the majority of the "citizenry" backed the government's decision. I think the polls reflected that, even before "Bush's unforgiveable lies". Is that not so?

0 Replies

I think you need to go back and re-read the polls.
Truthout.org

Quote:

Conflicted emotions over Iraq ripple through the survey.

The public remains unconvinced of key elements in Bush's case for war. Nearly three-fifths of respondents said they did not believe the report from U.N. weapons inspectors last week-- which was sharply critical of Iraq-- by itself provided "sufficient cause" to go to war. And just one-third of those surveyed said Bush had presented enough evidence to convince them of his charge that Iraq and al-Qaida had established links; 56 percent said they remained unconvinced.

Despite those doubts, poll respondents, by 57 percent to 38 percent, still said they would support Bush if he decides to "order U.S. troops into a ground attack against Iraqi forces." That's virtually unchanged since December.

But that support is immediately qualified by reluctance to invade without an explicit authorization from the United Nations. Fully 65 percent of Americans agreed that the United States "should take military action against Iraq only (with) ... the support of the United Nations Security Council." Just 30 percent said the United States should act without such authorization.

Like many choices on Iraq-- and indeed virtually all measures in the poll-- that question sharply divided the country along partisan lines. Nearly 8 out of 10 Democrats, and 7 out of 10 independents said they don't want to invade without U.N. approval.

"If the U.N. authorizes action, I agree we should play a part in that and support the U.N.," said Budzyn, the independent from Texas. "But if we are going go in there solely as one nation invading the other it is going to create more of a divide line between (us) and the rest of the world."

Buzzflash

Quote:

(The latest Gallup poll (10-6) shows only 37 percent would support military action by the U.S. against Iraq if it wasn't backed by the U.N. The 10-6 CBS poll shows 63 percent think U.S. needs to "give U.N. weapons inspectors time" and only 30 percent say "take military action soon.")

Searchbeat.com

Quote:

Support for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq started out incredibly high in early 2002, but began to slip later in the year. However, overall support for an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power clearly increased after President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address and Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council (see the UN Security Council and war on Iraq).....
A poll conducted at the time by The New York Times and CBS News released showed even less support for the US-led war. Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately...
Some polls showed that Bush's State of the Union increased US support for the invasion, but other polls showed that it had little effect. Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, at between 55-65% (58% according to CNN/USA Today, 57% according to the LA Times, and 67% according to Fox). However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that. ...
. An ABC news poll found little difference in the percentage of Americans who felt that Bush has made his case for war after he had made his speech, with the percentage remaining at about 40%...
Only 27 percent opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April of 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month.

The important aspect is the lack of support for unilateral action. I am probably the most dovelike person in my cirlce of friends, and I would have supported the invasion if it had been supported by a real coalition, and honesty from the administration. Had efforts been even attempted to prevent the chaos that occurred I would have given a grudging "well done" to the war. As it stands, I am ashamed to be a citizen of a rogue state.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Can't we take off our partisan caps for a moment and admit Saddom was a murderous monster who deserved what he got?

The ends still don't justify the means.

That's a nice little coat of gloss you just applied over the bodies of nearly 500 American soldiers and untold thousands of innocent Iraqis.

It doesn't conceal the tragedy.

Correct me if I'm wrong with these numbers. Saddam's regime was responsible for 2 million deaths in 28 years of service. That averages out to over 70,000 deaths for each year of service. If these numbers are accurate; how do you gloss that over? Are these deaths less tragic?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

I think you need to go back and re-read the polls.

I watched the polls almost daily during the build up. If you think my assertion is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong with these numbers. Saddam's regime was responsible for 2 million deaths in 28 years of service. That averages out to over 70,000 deaths for each year of service. If these numbers are accurate; how do you gloss that over? Are these deaths less tragic?

Can we PLEASE stop with the "but the other guy's worser" excuse?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
I think you need to go back and re-read the polls.
I watched the polls almost daily during the build up

I find that hard to believe.

Quote:

. If you think my assertion is incorrect, the burden of proof is on you.

Perhaps you might wish to explore the links I provided.

0 Replies

Quote:

Can we PLEASE stop with the "but the other guy's worser" excuse

No Bob, we can't. Death is Death. I bring it up to support my opinion that the war effort was the lesser of two evils. This cannot be done without comparing the two evils. It is the most logical rebuttal for any mention of life lost since the effort began. Do you really think that's unfair?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:
Can we PLEASE stop with the "but the other guy's worser" excuse
No Bob, we can't. Death is Death. I bring it up to support my opinion that the war effort was the lesser of two evils.

It is the least logical rebuttal. You said it yourself, death is death. One death does not excuse further deaths unless you don't value life very highly. (see your previous comments about "gladly killing everyone who disagrees with you," and "I've never killed anyone, but when I do, I hope I will be able to do it efficiently," etc...)

Quote:

This cannot be done without comparing the two evils.

A comparison that is valid only in the sense that both are reprehensible abuses of human rights.

Quote:

It is the most logical rebuttal for any mention of life lost since the effort began. Do you really think that's unfair?

Of course I think its unfair. If I didn't,would I bother to comment?

0 Replies

That not true HB. If through deaths a greater amount of deaths are prevented then there is a logical case to be made.

Bill wasn't arguing that death excuses death, but that death prevented death.

I disagree with the way he reached the conclusion as it related to Saddam but the concept is not logically flawed (if perhaps overused).

But I do have a qualm with Bill's reasoning. And that qualm is that I think the manner through which he obtains his average ignores that in recent years there was a sharp decline.

And because of the decline I did not think Saddam's government would have caused that amount of deaths.

In other words it failed to differentiate between a contained Saddam and a rampaging Saddam. And if Saddam was not going to kill that many people then said deaths were not prevented, thusly not excusing the incurrance of death to prevent what had been achieved without said deaths.

0 Replies

All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?

Worth
going to war
%
2003 Dec 15-16 ^ 61

2003 Dec 14 62
2003 Dec 5-7 59
2003 Nov 14-16 56
2003 Nov 3-5 ^ 54
2003 Oct 24-26 54
2003 Oct 6-8 ^ 55
2003 Sep 19-21 50
2003 Sep 8-10 58
2003 Aug 25-26 63
2003 Jul 25-27 63
2003 Jul 18-20 63
2003 Jun 27-29 56
2003 Apr 14-16 73
2003 Apr 9 76
2003 Apr 7-8 67
2003 Mar 24-25 ^ 68
2003 Jan 3-5 ^ 53

This is taken from Gallop.com. It doesn't post very clearly but the last number after each date is the percentage of people who thought the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. You will see that it never dipped below 50%

0 Replies

My problem with this sort of arguement is that it seems to imply that as long as we kill fewer people than the opponent in question, we are somehow morally superior. I think this is sloppy thinking. If Tyrant "a" kills 2000 people,and we kill 1999, does this still make us "better?" In addition, the manner of death is significant in the case of Iraq. Hussein killed thousands of innocents. The US has also killed (a smaller numer) innocents by a manner that suggests carelessness. Firing into crowds, bombing a restaraunt where Hussein "might" have been, firing ionto automobiles without giving orders to stop. While I realize that efforts have been made, for PR purposes, to minimize civillian casualties, the number of civillian casualties seems to be the result of poor planning on the part of the war's architects. This is why I find the arguement of "well,at least we haven't killed as many as Hussein has" to be fallacious. If the war had been the effort of an internationally supported coalition, and , especially, if State Dept. plans to maintain order in Iraq had been followed, I would be less inclined to see this entire excercise as a morally bankrupt undertaking, and would be less outraged at what would likely have been a lower number of casualties on both sides.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?

Worth
going to war
%
2003 Dec 15-16 ^ 61

2003 Dec 14 62
2003 Dec 5-7 59
2003 Nov 14-16 56
2003 Nov 3-5 ^ 54
2003 Oct 24-26 54
2003 Oct 6-8 ^ 55
2003 Sep 19-21 50
2003 Sep 8-10 58
2003 Aug 25-26 63
2003 Jul 25-27 63
2003 Jul 18-20 63
2003 Jun 27-29 56
2003 Apr 14-16 73
2003 Apr 9 76
2003 Apr 7-8 67
2003 Mar 24-25 ^ 68
2003 Jan 3-5 ^ 53

This is taken from Gallop.com. It doesn't post very clearly but the last number after each date is the percentage of people who thought the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. You will see that it never dipped below 50%

Raw data means nothing. The links I posted report that favour for war was strongly contingent on international support. I too would have supported the invasionwith international support. Without the support of the international community (and plese don't wax rhapsodic about the "coalition..woo-hooo...we have Tonga on our side...I feel better already!) this was exposed as an act of imperialistic aggression by a fading superpower.

0 Replies

Bill, I'd like nothing less than to go down this well-worn path with you.

Before I do so, I'd like you to note that this is the fifth iteration of this discussion.

There are four other threads, containing tens of thousands of posts.

All rehashing the same three or four arguments.

This conversation has been going on in this forum (and around the world) for almost two years, and nobody (to my knowledge) has convinced a single person to change their mind.

Now, I'm sure you haven't gone back and read all of those arguments, and I don't blame you.

You're obviously not moving toward a change of heart either, and I don't fault you for that.

Now then:

By your logic, we ought to be invading North Korea and disarming their murderous regime, as well as Iran and probably Cuba and even China.

(Certainly Libya, before they capitulated this week. There's a case to be made that they should have been the first to be 'freed'.)

There's literally millions of deaths we need to try to prevent in those countries.

What are we waiting for?

0 Replies

I'm sure that if Bush is re-elected, we will be invading many more countries. Sad

Fear not, I'm sure Tonga and Uzbekistan will still be on our side, at least as long as the checks clear. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

But I do have a qualm with Bill's reasoning. And that qualm is that I think the manner through which he obtains his average ignores that in recent years there was a sharp decline.

And because of the decline I did not think Saddam's government would have caused that amount of deaths.

In other words it failed to differentiate between a contained Saddam and a rampaging Saddam. And if Saddam was not going to kill that many people then said deaths were not prevented, thusly not excusing the incurrance of death to prevent what had been achieved without said deaths.

I will concede the fact of the decline in recent years, but I attribute it to the amount of pressure applied to Iraq. If we were to accept the dog and pony show he was putting on as a factual exhibit of compliance, we would then have been compelled to ease the restrictions against him. I believe his past performance would have proved indicative of future results. Any number of deaths created verses prevented is strictly a matter of opinion since we will never know. As you have shown; you don't have to agree with my opinion to accept it as reasonable.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

My problem with this sort of arguement is that it seems to imply that as long as we kill fewer people than the opponent in question, we are somehow morally superior.

If someone is arguing that they have a very weak case. But if they are arguing that by killing fewer people more people can be spared they have a better case.

I do not think that is a valid case as it relates to Iraq but I do not think the concept is flawed.

To differentiate.

Two muderers are arguing and one declares himself morally superior because he killed 103 people and the other killed 104.

That is a very weak case.

But to assert that a cop who kills someone before they kill thousands is a morally superior position is a different story.

I don't think it is the story in Iraq and I don't even think it was really intended to be preventative at all. But that's a qualm with the application of the concept and not the concept itself.

If the deaths were preventative of more deaths then there is some validity. I don;t think anyone was arguing that simply killing fewer people amkes the decision moral. I think there was the clear implication that by doing so lives were saved.

I disagree with that notion. But don't you think that Bill'sargument is more along the lines of a "saved lives" argument than a "killing less makes us good" argument?

I do, though I disagree with the veracity of the "saving lives" argument.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

[
I will concede the fact of the decline in recent years, but I attribute it to the amount of pressure applied to Iraq.

So, by your own admission, containment was working.

Quote:

If we were to accept the dog and pony show he was putting on as a factual exhibit of compliance, we would then have been compelled to ease the restrictions against him.

Which would have meant 400 odd Americans stil alive, 2500 intact, and 1500 Iraqis not dead!

Quote:

I believe his past performance would have proved indicative of future results.

Which would likely have led to international efforts to contain him, not the illegal unilateral act of imperalist aggression instigated by the US.

Quote:

Any number of deaths created versus prevented is strictly a matter of opinion since we will never know.

Really, so they would all have died anyway? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

As you have shown; you don't have to agree with my opinion to accept it as reasonable.

But your very statement above shows your opinion to be less than reasonable.

0 Replies

Quote:

If someone is arguing that they have a very weak case. But if they are arguing that by killing fewer people more people can be spared they have a better case.

Give the man a cigar and a chubby intern with big hair! Very Happy

Quote:

But don't you think that Bill's argument is more along the lines of a "saved lives" argument than a "killing less makes us good" argument?

I think that is the gist of his reasoning, alsthough the presentation is muddled.

Quote:

I do, though I disagree with the veracity of the "saving lives" argument.

Me too, though what do I know, I'm just a pinko liberal who is out to pervert family values! Very Happy

0 Replies

PDiddie,
I agree with everything you just said. I hope with all of my heart that North Korea will be next. No, I don't like War. Yes, I think if necessary to free those people from the oppression of Kim Jong Il, it is justified.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I will concede the fact of the decline in recent years, but I attribute it to the amount of pressure applied to Iraq.

So do I. That is why I think the characterization of the efforts previosu to the war as "failled" are demonstratably false.

Fact is, that the efforts prior to the war had directly attributable and positive results.

Quote:

If we were to accept the dog and pony show he was putting on as a factual exhibit of compliance, we would then have been compelled to ease the restrictions against him.

Why? And if so why does it matter?

We were perfectly willing to ignore said compelling and could have easily continued to do so.

Quote:

I believe his past performance would have proved indicative of future results.

Perhaps. But I think his past performance is indicative of a past situation that was no longer applicable.

Simply put, his intent might not have changed but his ability to act on it had.

Quote:

As you have shown; you don't have to agree with my opinion to accept it as reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable. But for different reasons than a conceptual flaw.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know