X~Slayer(ALE)-So our founding fathers, instead of trying to predetermine a correct time, just allowed it at any time.
Or maybe they thought any time was the correct time. Do you have some reason to think that the founding fathers wanted to determine a good way to limit debate but had to give up? Honestly asking.
As with everything, there are no absolutes. There are exceptions to everything. Debating the details to operation Overlord right before the D-Day invasion might be considered a bad time. Demonstrating about the hazards of gigantic balls of flame in New Mexico during atomic bomb trials might be understandibly suppressed. Revealing the identites of US spies is not protected speech and knowing classified secrets is not guaranteed because there are some secrets that are still secret decades from when they were classified.
All these are limitations to the first ammendment. Freedom of speech is not absolute and rather than tryng to frame the constitution under a maze of limitations, rules, restrictions and caveats the founding fathers wisely chose to leave those out. Its not a question of “giving up” Anyone in that era couldve chosen the way of English law with its strict rules and restrictions. Our founding fathers merely found a better way.
And since when do politicians have exclusive domain over the truth and “what is right”? Are you saying the only way someone can make a truly informed decision is to hold public office?
How does protesting against an impending war in Iraq even generally resemble the “exceptions” you’ve listed above?
furt isn’t an idiot.
andros, OTOH, is.
Thanks, furt. I’ll just wander off now.
Please explain how the Sedition Act of 1798 fits into this “better way” the founding fathers found.
Oh, and what olent said. I don’t see how public antiwar demonstrations equates in any way with releasing classified intelligence.
Thanks! 
So what does it come down to? The pros and cons of this potential war?
Pros:
Hussein is removed from power. While I have no experience seeing the populace of Iraq, most reports stand that it is not a very pleasant place to live. With him out of power, the sanctions will end, as well. Standard of living for the Iraqi people will most likely improve as the years progress.
With Hussein gone, the potential threat to any allied countries–namely, Israel–in that region will be lowered. This doesn’t account for Palestinian zealots and terrorists, but Hussein, as a threat, will be gone. (The Hussein connection to Al-Qaeda has not been proven or disproven, so I can’t comment on that.)
The United Nations gets access to more Middle Eastern oil. As much as I dislike the idea, the entire western world runs on petroleum, and it’s become less of a want and more of a need since the start of the start of the twentieth century.
Cons:
Future problems–September 11th was a direct result of the United States’ CIA training and funding Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in the Cold War. The law of unforseen conesquences comes into play here; we simply don’t know what a war in the middle east might make the people in its yoke do. There could (and very likely will) be more terrorist attacks as a result; if not here, then possibly in Israel. War itself, while being a means to a greater end, can have some terrible ramifications. The defeated might very well have nothing to lose and would see no problem striking back at the country that conquered it.
Keeping the new Iraqi government up and running: this will be a large burden on the United Nations’ funds. I predict another large hike in the United States’ national deficet due to this. Maintaining a military prescence over there (as the western allies are doing in Afganistan and are also doing throughout the rest of the world) will cost huge amounts of money.
And finally, war itself. No war is ever fought without casualties. Hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people are going to die before this is all said and done. I predict the majority will be on the Iraqi side, but if Hussein displaces to Baghdad, the war could get very, very messy. It’s almost impossible to strike a city without innocent lives lost, and if it comes down to infantry going in and clearing the city a block at a time, allied casualties will increase expotentially. The enemy will know the city. And if they fight (as opposed to surrendering this time around) there could be many casualties. (One thing I was taught in MOUT training–Marine Operations in Urban Terrain–is that casualties in an enemy urban situation are always much larger than that of country or rural terrain).
Now, my opinion on this situation: I’m a Marine Reservist, so I can’t very well comment on battle conditions and what it’s like out in combat. A part of my unit was activated, and (in truth) I wanted to go myself. I like the life of being a grunt. I like being out in the field, stupid as that sounds. I can’t really explain why. But I’m at home, finishing up my college, and will probably go active as soon as I’m done.
War, in my opinion, should be an absolute last course of action–something to be used only when all other forms of diplomacy have failed. Have we come to that point yet? We’re close, I think. Hussein is in violation of UN mandate, and believes that the UN Inspectors are “spies.” If he kicks them out again Bush will see no other option but war.
Then again–in the end, it doesn’t matter what I think. I believe that Bush has a hard-on for the war, for whatever reasons he deems necessary. (Sure, I could bring up the argument that <i>he’s</i> not the one fighting, nor his daughters, and that his opinion might change if he himself had to grab a rifle and go into the desert, but that’s an argument without rationale; the fact stands that he’s the Commander-in-Chief, and wishing or believing that things should be any other way is a waste of time. What is is what <i>is</i>, and that’s all that’s relevant.) If we go to war–and consequentially, my mortar platoon gets activated–my opinions don’t matter; I’m there to do my job, and that’s it.
I did want to thank everyone on the boards for seeing this issue with logic (mostly) and common sense. Thank you very much for respecting all personnel in the military, no matter if we go to war or not. It’s not our decision; that’s up to the politicans, and thank you again for hating–or admiring–them as you see fit.
By the way, I know I posted a large number of statements in there that require cites. For those interested, I can go find some if you like. But then again, finding cites on the internet is kinda like asking for the truth from a pack of philosophers. Everyone has their own opinion. It’s not like everything on the internet is fact. 
I sure do wish I had turned HTML tags on. Now I look like a plotz.
Anytime my government contemplates something that I may disagree, it is the time and place for protests.
Anytime my government implements something that I may disagree, it is the time and place for protests.
The beauty of the First Amendment, in particular, the Bill of Rights, in general, and the Constitution, overall, is that they’re always on. There is no off switch.
Being on the brink does not automatically mean we must go over it. Unless, of course, you happen to be a lemming. If a show of force causes the other guy to blink, why go through with it just because we’re all there, on the starting line, the engine’s running hot and we might as well pop the clutch anyway?
You are missing the point. That is not is being said here. Drawing a line in the sand daring one to cross it so you can punch them out because they deserve it anyway is not the same as UN resolutions and going to war. A bloody nose and hurt pride does not compare to a war with potential fallout on a worldwide scale, especially when our allies are saying to just hold it a sec. For me, that means Bush really hasn’t proven his case on the world stage, let alone with the American people.
Yes, I agree we have the UN resolutions, and the Congressional resolution to go to war right now. Wanting is not the same as having.
Yeah, Saddam is a bad ass and should be eliminated. Not removed, but eliminated. But Bush has yet to come clear with the evidence to do it now. And just because the bandwagon is rolling does not mean it’s rolling in the correct direction right now.