I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Lol - like I said, even a broken clock is right twice a day!!!!

Don't get TOO excited, walter!

0 Replies

So your saying that the letter was not something that was organized by the project for the new american century but a letter that the project for the new american century decided to put on their website?

I do not know who those people are. I do know some of the people who are part of the project and I don't care for their beliefs. If what you say is true and they are not part of the orginal group that is one thing. But if they are part of the "Project for the New American Century" and believe in all that they do, then that to me is different.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
...what legal reason did the US present the UN with for reasons behind the invasion?

This is a joke, right?

Why? Do you find it humorous?

Sadly, no.

It's a mordant joke because the US never had any legal justification for the war. As far as I can piece together, the closest the US came to a legal justification was its attempt to claim that it was enforcing various UN Security Council resolutions. For instance, on the eve of the invasion, Bush stated: "In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will." He further claimed that UNSC Resolution 1441 also authorized the invasion in the event that Iraq did not "disarm."

Of course, all of this was complete nonsense. UNSC resolutions 678 and 687 were passed in 1990 and 1991 (an index of UNSC resolutions can be found here): they do not authorize the use of force except in conjunction with the terms set forth by the UNSC. UNSC Resolution 1441(.pdf document) barely authorizes any action at all, apart from stepped up weapons inspections: the closest it comes to threatening Iraq with any serious consequences is its statement that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." This kind of vague finger-wagging is simply not an authorization for a full-scale military invasion.

Furthermore, it should be fairly obvious that the entity responsible for enforcing UNSC resolutions is the UN Security Council, and it never voted to authorize the invasion (despite Bush's promise the nation that he would submit it to a vote, "no matter what the whip count"). So we are faced with a war to enforce the UNSC's resolutions against the will of the UN Security council. That hardly qualifies as "legal" justification.

What is more interesting, however, is that someone who, I presume, supports the war should be asking its opponents to offer the legal basis for that conflict. Surely, McG, if you can't come up with a rationale for the war, then maybe you need to re-examine your own rationale for supporting it.

0 Replies

And since you're in a "question-and-answer" mode, McGentrix, perhaps you'd care to answer this question that I posed a few days ago and which, I believe, you still haven't answered. For your convenience, I'll repeat it: "What are the US's goals?"

Also, you and the others here might want to answer the initial question that I posed: "Can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic?"

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

"Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right? 2 rhetorical questions should put that matter to rest.
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone.
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?
Case closed.

If this was the legal justification for the war, why didn't Bush mention these incidents when he announced to the nation his decision to invade?

0 Replies

I already tried giving them Bush's announcement to consider, Joe.

None so blind etc etc.

0 Replies

well, everyone knows you can't go by what Bush (et al) said because we all know you have to go by what Bush (et al) meant.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right? 2 rhetorical questions should put that matter to rest.
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone.
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?
Case closed.

If this was the legal justification for the war, why didn't Bush mention these incidents when he announced to the nation his decision to invade?

Sloppy Joe... I mean that's sloppy, Joe, and you would never let me get away with it. How would I know why Bush did or didn't mention any of his reasoning? Are you suggesting his thought process was somehow limited to what he announced to the nation?

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you suggesting his thought process was somehow limited to what he announced to the nation?

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't tell the nation every reason of why he was going to take the nation to war?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting his thought process was somehow limited to what he announced to the nation?

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't tell the nation every reason of why he was going to take the nation to war?

For starters, Revel, nothing in my response indicates any such thing. Secondly, there is likely not enough time in a day to mention every reason why he was going to take the nation to war.

Ps. You might want to lay low for awhile in hopes people forget about the exchange above. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sloppy Joe... I mean that's sloppy, Joe, and you would never let me get away with it. How would I know why Bush did or didn't mention any of his reasoning?

Well, you seem to know that he went to war over the incidents involving the fly-overs, so it seems that you know what was going on in Bush's mind even though he never said anything about the fly-overs. Given your keen, almost preternatural abilities to divine Bush's inner intentions, it shouldn't be very difficult at all for you to know why Bush didn't mention the fly-overs in his speech to the nation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Are you suggesting his thought process was somehow limited to what he announced to the nation?

I would never attempt to fathom the mystery that is the president's thought process. I would, however, suggest that, for something as important as the reasons for starting a war, the government shouldn't play a game of twenty questions with the nation.

0 Replies

I am not worried about the exchange above. In other words, I still stand by what I said and haven't changed my mind regardless of how I am precieved for my way of thinking.

0 Replies

btw- bill, the other day you gave me a present and I want to return the favor.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rod-stewart/117463.html

Paying particular attention to:

Don't let them put you down, don't let 'em push you around,
Don't let 'em ever change your point of view.

btw again: that is just a personal gift that only applies to your attempts in this particular instance.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sloppy Joe... I mean that's sloppy, Joe, and you would never let me get away with it. How would I know why Bush did or didn't mention any of his reasoning?

Well, you seem to know that he went to war over the incidents involving the fly-overs, so it seems that you know what was going on in Bush's mind even though he never said anything about the fly-overs. Given your keen, almost preternatural abilities to divine Bush's inner intentions, it shouldn't be very difficult at all for you to know why Bush didn't mention the fly-overs in his speech to the nation.

Still sloppy, Joe. Nothing in what you've quoted me saying indicates anything of the kind. There is no mention of Bush, the goings on in his mind, his intentions or any pronouncement that I know the reason for war. Focus Joe.

First, I asked a question: "Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right?
Next, I offered two rhetorical questions that I believe proves our "attack" was not "Unprovoked".
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone?
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?

Where did I lose you Joe?

0 Replies

Revel, dear, I should be the least of your concerns. You are alienating yourself from your political ilk's finest representatives with conclusions you've already admitted were unfounded. No one is trying to push you around. All are baffled that you don't realize that 'right' and 'left' alike united in their views of Putin. There is no political spin to put on it. Forget the opinions of everyone else. Research the people who you mistakenly misjudged and you will want to change your point of view. I promise. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still sloppy, Joe. Nothing in what you've quoted me saying indicates anything of the kind. There is no mention of Bush, the goings on in his mind, his intentions or any pronouncement that I know the reason for war. Focus Joe.

I'm trying to focus, O'BILL, but it's difficult when you keep bobbing and weaving with your arguments.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

First, I asked a question: "Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right?
Next, I offered two rhetorical questions that I believe proves our "attack" was not "Unprovoked".
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone?
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?

Where did I lose you Joe?

The initial post.

In a discussion about the legal justifications for the war, you inserted a statement disputing that the war was illegal because it was based upon an "unprovoked attack." What I failed to note is: (1) your statement was a complete non sequitur -- it had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at that point because it wasn't about legal justifications at all, it was about provocation; and (2) it was an exercise in question begging, since no one had mentioned that the war was or wasn't justified (or provoked) because of any "unprovoked attack."

Really, I hadn't fully appreciated these points until your remarks here. Normally, I'm much better at spotting such obviously fallacious arguments. I can only say that, in the future, I will try to do better. And I'll just assume that your "case closed" coda to your initial post was simply a rhetorical flourish, much in the manner of "mission accomplished."

0 Replies

joe, first of all, let me say thanks for the thought-provoking thread. I've been reading along for some time now with interest. The forum has lacked stimulating dialogue for awhile, and I am glad you started some.

I am in perfect alignment with your contention (which should come as no surprise to anyone, I'm guessing).

And I think my primary objection to the responses received so far from those who disagree has to do with the notion that we are 'rooting for the enemy', as if this was all just a football game or some other sporting event.

And that's an interesting analogy to explore, especially here at playoff time....

If this were football, and those of us "rooting for the enemy" were really the 'bad guys' (aka unpatriotic), then it's at least possible both sides could -- at the conclusion of the "contest" -- ultimately acknowledge our rivalry and reconcile our divergent stands. If we were all 'good sports'. (Of course this is a straw argument. There's too much we would have to dismiss about the aspects of US football, such as the inherent premise that "there's always next season"; the effect of either free agency or graduating and recruiting classes on the "army's" talent level; and a myriad of other unrelated influences having really nothing in common when one compares war and football. But I digress from the original digression.)

al-Qaeda's stated premise for attacking the United States on 9/11/2001 included the undesired imposition of the West on their culture -- American military bases in Saudi Arabia, the pervasiveness of English as the preferred second language of the planet (and the only one for most Americans), US financial markets and their influence on the global ones; even symbols such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and the cinematic Arnold Schwarzeneggar (God forbid we enable the political incarnation to pursue higher office; Muslims will be terrified and react accordingly). I think it's vital to note that this is one war -- the global culture war -- that we will win, hands down. Creeping Western sociology won't ever be slowed, never reigned in. This is one thing Muslims are just going to have to live with (until such time as the Chinese can begin to assert themselves in the world).

But there are many things about us they will never accept, and continue to fight against (and kill and die for), that we -- the United States and other Western countries -- can agree to mitigate. Hegemony, for instance.

To cite a more specific example, I don't believe that Iraq will ever adopt a Western-style democracy, whether we continue to compel such at the business end of an Abrams or not, no matter if we stay there fifty years and draw out all of the oil or don't. At some undetermined point in the future this will become apparent to some slim majority of the electorate, and that's when it will finally become clear to those in power (undoubtedly some succeeding administration), and that's when the decision to withdraw will be made. (I won't speculate for now on what may replace the CPA or whatever passes for Iraqi government if elections are held later this month. At one point in our own nation's early history a case was made for 'self-determination of nations'. That probably best applies here as well.)

And because this fundamental premise of the Bush doctrine -- pre-emptive military action to ward off "gathering threats" -- will then be nullified, revealed as the folly we know it to be, the person(s) who eventually make this decision cannot necessarily have any connection to the Republican Party or Bush. The political blowback would simply be too devastating.

Besides, everyone knows the GOP doesn't make (or admit to making) mistakes.

So my contention is that until we have someone besides this brand of Republicans in charge, we'll continue down this road. Sadly, the Democrats simply don't appear to have the spine for the fight. I believe it will require some coalition of political parties on the left and center, as well as moderate Republicans, to slow this juggernaut. That could happen in the next election cycle; it could not happen for a generation or two.

For now I'll continue to fight the powers that be.

edit: corrected word choice predecessor/successor

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Still sloppy, Joe. Nothing in what you've quoted me saying indicates anything of the kind. There is no mention of Bush, the goings on in his mind, his intentions or any pronouncement that I know the reason for war. Focus Joe.

I'm trying to focus, O'BILL, but it's difficult when you keep bobbing and weaving with your arguments.

Address any portion of my argument and I'll be happy to explain it. I will not stand by while you assign additional meanings to my words anymore than you would.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
First, I asked a question: "Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right?
Next, I offered two rhetorical questions that I believe proves our "attack" was not "Unprovoked".
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone?
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?

Where did I lose you Joe?

The initial post.

In a discussion about the legal justifications for the war, you inserted a statement disputing that the war was illegal because it was based upon an "unprovoked attack." What I failed to note is: (1) your statement was a complete non sequitur -- it had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at that point because it wasn't about legal justifications at all, it was about provocation; and (2) it was an exercise in question begging, since no one had mentioned that the war was or wasn't justified (or provoked) because of any "unprovoked attack."

Really, I hadn't fully appreciated these points until your remarks here. Normally, I'm much better at spotting such obviously fallacious arguments. I can only say that, in the future, I will try to do better. And I'll just assume that your "case closed" coda to your initial post was simply a rhetorical flourish, much in the manner of "mission accomplished."

I've heard many A2Kers use words to the effect that the war was illegal because Iraq didn't attack us and was therefore unprovoked. Some of those people have participated in this thread. My only point in my post was to take that off the table. If you disagree it should be off the table, please point out the error in my conclusion without inventing additional meanings that I clearly never intended. Or don't. But do me a favor and don't insinuate I'm guilty of bobbing and weaving or any other wrongdoing simply because I pointed out the mistake in your logic when you assumed meanings that weren't there. There's no cause for that.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Revel, dear, I should be the least of your concerns. You are alienating yourself from your political ilk's finest representatives with conclusions you've already admitted were unfounded. No one is trying to push you around. All are baffled that you don't realize that 'right' and 'left' alike united in their views of Putin. There is no political spin to put on it. Forget the opinions of everyone else. Research the people who you mistakenly misjudged and you will want to change your point of view. I promise. :wink:

I am not particulary worried about who I alienate as I am not in a popularity contest.

I am not sure what you think I admitted.

It is not matter of Puttin. I agreed that he is worrisome in some his actions of late if what is said about him is true and I said at the outset I have no reason to doubt it is true.

I am not judging people I don't know from Adam. What I am judging is where the letter was found which was at the PNAC website. I disagree with their beliefs and if the people that sent the letter are part of that organization in any way, then regardless of the content of the letter to the Putin, I have to assume that they sanction the rest of the beliefs from the PNAC group.

Let me put it another way to better explain.

Lets say that some people feel that Bush engaged in an illegal war and those people wrote a letter to Bush stating the reasons why they feel that way and all the reasons make sense and are true. The people that signed the letter are regular well known respected people. But the letter is found on a militant islamic website. Wouldn't that make a difference to the letter itself and bring into question the people who signed the letter of whether they are part of the islamic group?

If PNAC just put that letter on their website then the letter is not part of the PNAC and it is a different matter.

You said earlier that I was getting pathetic and laughable and of course you had to bring up your often repeated little line about the "blame america first crowd" and then said I should lay low because others have disagreed with me on how I feel about the letter. I don't know I guess I am too sensitive but it seems to me that you are insulting me and trying to say that I am going to be unpopular if I don't change my stance because some people who happen to not agree with the war feel differently about a letter that came from the PNAC website.

I don't know about anyone else, but everything I ever say on the internet message boards is based on ideas and beliefs that I honestly have and not something that i just put out there in a misguided attempt to win friends or impress people with my knowledge. So I am not going to change my beliefs just because others think it is wrong or whatever. I'll change it if i am convinced that I was wrong just like most people do I am sure.

I am willing to let it drop and let the impressions stand regardless.

0 Replies

Joe, would you still want the U.S. to lose in Iraq if it had had the full sanction (in your eyes) of the United Nations?

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know