Dispatches From DC?

jimnass wrote: YOu can belive what you want, but middle america is supporting the troops and the president as we seek to combat evil, terrorists and those that support terrorism.

According to Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030113.asp while 53% of Americans support going to war, 42% oppose the same.

That hardly seems like the groundswell of support you seem to be touting for this particular fight against "evil" (or whatever other pejorative you care to use).

Some folks might consider it evil to send young Americans to fight, kill and possibly die for specious reasons, especially when the ones responsible for the sending managed (and indeed in many cases went to great lengths) to avoid combat themselves.

Re: neo, please answer


I did answer you! I said that I consider that there's a difference between being an Anti-Semite and being Anti-Zionist and then said that I feel that your opinion may be based on only hearing quotes designed to suit a particular agenda.

To me a progressive stands for social and economic justice, reining in the powers of corporations and the wealthy, protecting the planet and preserving religious liberty through the maintenance of the "Wall Of Separation".

I also think Joan and VNN have a point. Yes this anti-war movement, much like the one 40 years ago did START at the fringes, but then went mainstream. I've seen the NAACP, NOW, Sierra Club and Nat. Council of Churches all take up opposition to this.

Support for the president
blacksmith,

and a pew poll:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=664

states that 76% of americans support war if iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction - and chemical warheads were found last week, and also, iraq hasn't told the UN where the weapons the UN saw 5 years ago were since iraq now says they don't have them. Do you support war if weapons of mass destruction are found.

further down in the poll, 68% of americans, the highest ever, support using force to remove hussein from power with allied support (which we have).

sounds like a groundswell of support to me!

let me ask you, do you think america should go to war for any reason?

answering doestn mean repeating your statement
Neo,

saying there is a difference between an anti-semite and an anti-zionist doesn't explain what you mean. define those terms to me please.

Neo, once again saying a progressive stands for social and economic justice, etc, isnt saying anything at all. do you support motherhood and apple pie too? What is social and economic justice to you? How would you bring it about? what programs would you support to gain what you call justice?

Do you also want to rein in the power of big government and big unions or only big corporations?

How do you define the wealthy? and how do you propose reining in their power? How are they causing the loss of justice , or what is the problem with the wealthy?

how do you propose protecting the planet and from who?

do you support religious liberty for all religions? or only some? define the wall of separation for me please. do you mean religious shouldn't be involved in politics or only some religious?

cliches are fine sometimes, but please try to explain yourself, so that we know what we are discussing.

The keyword is "reason." So far, there seems to be little to none. Let me ask you-- do you see any reason why Iraq should not be assaulted by a larger, more powerful nation for no readily apparent reason?

And you might want to read your own link a little more closely.

"The latest Pew Research Center nationwide survey of 1,218 Americans, conducted Jan. 8-12, shows that fewer Americans than in the fall believe that President Bush has "explained clearly what's at stake as to why the U.S. might use military force to end the rule of Saddam Hussein." Just 42% say Bush has made the case, while a 53% majority thinks he has not. That represents a decline since mid-September when, in the days following his major speech on Iraq at the U.N., 52% said the president had clearly explained the stakes in Iraq. "

Furthermore, both your link and others I have seen indicate that US support for war drops off dramatically if we act unilaterally, which is essentially what we'd be doing, British support notwithstanding, without the yet-to-be-granted approval of the UN.

Reasons for war
blacksmith,

Let's see, violating their agreements time after time after time since they lost the gulf war. Throwing out the UN a few years ago and now violating the latest UN resolution. I just heard Blix on the radio, he said Iraq still has not explained what happened to the weapons the UN saw the last time.

Add to that supporting terrorists in the past and present, including the use of weapons of mass destruction already - he has killed a million and a half of his own countrymen to date. If those aren't reasons enough, please say so. And also, tell me if there is any reason you see for america to ever go to war?

I read the Pew link and i saw what you say and it doesn't contradict what i cited. also, we clearly have british support, just yesterday they sent additional troops. we also have the support of turkey, Qatar, Kuwait...doesn't sound like we are acting unilaterally at all. So are you supporting america yet? Are there any circumstances you would support america in this?

Jimnass:

A lot of questions--and I will answer you.

Also go to http://thenextwar.blogspot.com and see how much support this has worldwide!

Looking forward to answers
Neo,

I look forward to the answers and hope we can have a good discussion.

As for foreign support, we cannot direct our foreign policy by what others think - and i saw mideast experts on TV yesterday and they said there is a lot of support in the mideast, but its quiet right now, as they are afraid of Hussein.

jimnass says



Aside from the British what allied support do we have? That despite all the payoffs and arm twisting. We may not have that if the British public has it's say. In addition the American public 's support falls off sharply if the action is not sanctioned by the UN.
We can't have it both ways saying that Iraq has defied the UN sanctions which justifies an action and than ignore their wishes.
As for the Saddams actions against his people it is just a convenient excuse. There are many places in the world where greater atrocities are occurring on a daily basis. Many nations in Africa are or were virtual killing fields.
As for WMD's the possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and India two nations who are at each others throats is far more worrisome.

To get back to the peace march for a moment, here's an opinion piece from the Nation who, as vietnamnurse said, is changing its tune from criticism to support.

The movement is growing so steadily that controversies over the politics of national organizations like ANSWER are increasingly irrelevant. (While the two major national antiwar coalitions, United for Peace and ANSWER, have different politics, sensibilities and organizing styles, they endorse each other's events. United for Peace has called a national rally in New York City on February 15.) At Saturday's demonstrations, it was the demonstrators, not the organizers, that set the tone.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030203&s=featherstone

Our Allies
AU,

As for our allies, yes the british!! (why don't they seem to count, lol) Australia, Italy, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey - is that enough?

We don't need a new UN approval - as the security council has, many times, supported action. But in any event, Iraq has already violated many UN resolutions.

You may be more worried about India and Pakistan, I'm most worried about Iraq. But what action, if any, should we take with India and Pakistan?

Wow! Turkey, Qatar AND Kuwait? Now, THAT'S a coalition! The perception of most of the world, i.e. those countries not contributing to the war dance, is that an attack without UN sanction would be essentially a unilateral act.

As for violating agreements, yes I suppose Saddam has. So what? That hardly seems a sufficient reason for bloodshed at this point.

Regarding the use of WMDs in the past, I shouldn't have to remind you that the US has also used WMDs in the past. Should we then prepare to attack ourselves? Furthermore, there appears to be precious little evidence that Saddam currently is in possession of WMDs. Finally, it should be noted that Saddam used WMDs against Iran while we complicitly turned a blind eye and he used WMDs against his own folks while WE were in a position to stop him.

As for supporting terrorism, I presume you're talking about Palestinians, because as far as I know there's been no evidence of Iraqi support of Al Qaeda. You may remember Al Qaeda, they're the ones responsible for the WTC attack and who we now seem to be completely ignoring in our pursuit of war with Iraq. In any case, if this support of Palestinian radicals is sufficient reason for attack, shouldn't we be planning to attack most of the Arab world, since they all at one time or another have evinced varying degrees of such support?

And no, I'm not ready to blindly follow our Fearless Leader as he leads us down the path to purposeless war.

Tue January 21, 2003 09:52 AM ET
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's foreign minister denied Tuesday a media report that Ankara had decided to give the United States permission to use its bases for an attack on Iraq if war became unavoidable.

jimnass
Blacksmithin beat me to it. There is little more to add. I did however get a good laugh when you listed the mighty world powers that make up our coalition

Blacksmith and Au dont answer questions
There are different levels of support for different actions, the countries listed are supportive right now of war. when the war, caused by hussein, begins, there will be more, many more.

au, you asked who besides the british supports us, i think australia, italy, etc are enough...why don't you tell us instead at what point if any, you would support america in its war against terrorism?

also, what do you think we should do with india and pakistan, since they worry you more than iraq?

blacksmith, you didn't answer me either, would you support america in any scenario regarding war? you also state that iraq doesn't "currently" have weapons of mass destruction - so you admit they had them, where are they? would it matter to you if the UN found one today? Blix just said that iraq isn't being open with what happened to them...do you belive blix? last week, the un found missiles not on the list - do you trust hussein?

we aren't forgetting al queda, a war against terrorism isn't a typical war and there are battles going on all around the world. iraq is a terrorist supporting state, that you admit, or do you support the palestinians?

Again, is there any scenario you would support america in this matter?

jimnass


I support the war against terrorism. But what has that got to do with the attack upon Iraq. There is absolutely no proof that Iraq had any hand in the 9/11 bombing. That despite all the administrations efforts to tie the two together. Mr. Bush somehow never mentions Bin Laden it is as if he never existed. As to a preemptive attack that should only occur when all other options are exhausted and with the sanction of the UN or at least the Major powers.
You ask me what to do about the conflict between Pakistan and India. Just what we are doing trying to keep the lid on. IMO we have more to fear from an eruption in that quarter than Iraq at the present time.

Is there ANY scenario? Yes, I can IMAGINE several, none of them applicable, being made up out of whole cloth as it were and not based on facts. On the other hand, the planned invasion isn't based on actual facts either, is it?

Is there any scenario you can imagine where we don't attack?

jimnass says


I should like to remind you that both Iran and Syria also support terrorism Shall we attack them as well?

Au and Blacksmith
Au and Blacksmith,

thanks for admitting there is no scenario you support america in its battle against iraqi terrorism! Enough said!

Thanks for tacitly admitting that there's no level of support less than wholehearted and unquestioning that would meet your less than exacting (some would say downright undemocratic) standard. I presume you'll be shipping out for the invasion soon?