How does hyperbole further your cause? Even though I am ultra-liberal and against the war, your rhetoric sets back the opposition to Bush’s policies light years.
lucy, thank you, but I really don’t know what I have to retrract. IMO, Bush is personally responsible for all American casualties. He’s the one one who sent them there. He didn’t have to do it. I say the blood is on his hands. What’s wrong with my logic?
Riboflavin, all the violations in the world still do not grant teh US any legal authority to enforce them.
Amen to that. The overwhelming feeling that Saddam’s bloodbath strategy is still right on track is disturbing me a lot. The casualty count might really spike in the near future.
However, I was thinking about the fact that hopefully soon Iraq will not be under UN sanctions or Saddam. How many lives will those dead US Marines, and the rest of the true heros - the ones who don’t come back - have saved, albeit indirectly, just through the lifting of the sanctions?
Which brings me back to the OP. If there really is a 100 acre chemical weapons factory in Iraq that we’ve found already, I can’t believe that is more than the tip of the iceberg. If so, this war was overdue.
But up until now you’ve had better things to do?
I commend to you the recent writings of the smartest woman in Texas, Ms. Molly Ivins. You should read its entirety, but heres a couple of cogent points as to the “legality”.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/5462708.htm
"On the details of the negotiations, Josh Marshall had a fascinating point on his Web site (www.talkingpointsmemo.com) about Resolution 1441 itself. He suggests there are two different interpretations of it.
The one by the United States is that if Saddam Hussein were found not to be in compliance… the resolution gave the green light for an invasion…
France, Russia and most of the rest of the countries on the Security Council thought they were signing on to a juiced-up version of inspections, basically like what we had until the old system broke down in 1998," says Marshall. “That would mean a relatively open-ended process in which inspectors went into Iraq and searched around at will. If they found stuff, it would be destroyed. If they obstructed the inspections, then the U.N. might sanction forcing the issue by authorizing an attack.”
[emphasis added]
[snip]
"On the day the resolution was passed, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: “There is not ‘automaticity,’ and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.”
Boiled down, he’s saying that US promised that any violation or accusation thereof would be brought before the Security Council for judgement before military action could be taken.
“Now that is perfectly clear. And that is why the other nations so bitterly feel had on this. No one likes people who deal in bad faith.”
So, tell me: if we were so convinced that we had legitimate authorization to go to war on our own discretion, why then we promise not to? And, having promised not to and done so, why in the world should anyone believe a word we say, ever again?
Gosh, I step away for a couple of hours, and you guys are stilling debating this?
Until the report is confirmed (and if it is a chemical weapons plant, it will be confirmed, ASAP), I rather not spend time debating it. It could all look so silly.
Do I want to bet? No, I’m not the gambler our President is.
He rolled the dice with 1441, and lost. He has now rolled the dice with Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I sure hope, for the sake of this country, that it pays off.
I will take the bet, Milium, that you can’t show me where the Pentagon has confirmed this story (at least by the time of this post). You see, I read the original Fox News story, and the Jerusalem Post story, before Joe_Cool posted his OP.
The story, even then, talked about “unamed Pentagon sources” and a “suspected chemical weapons facility”.
Nothing on the Pentagon news site. Nothing on Central Command (besides what I quoted already). I haven’t checked the White House or the State Department, however. But for some reason, I would think the story would show up on the front page of Google news if they had confirmed it. And it doesn’t.
Now, even if the Pentagon confirms it, it doesn’t make it true. But I’ll accept that as close enough to consider it debate material.
In the meantime, you guys have fun. I see the Scud thread in the Pit went 4 pages.
Logic is one thing. But the word “murder” is pissing kerosene on a fire. Things is bad enough. And likely to get worse.
Not claiming any virtue here, I’m as much a slut as the next girl on the street.
So it’s hyperbolic, but it’s how I felt when looking at the pictures of those dead sodiers. I sincerely feel like Bush has no right to expose these kids to this. He’s abusing his authority, and IMO, he has put his own political agenda above the lives of his troops. These kids are only supposed to sacrificed only as a last resort, only to protect our country from real danger. This war is not protecting us from anything. The shit that’s happening to those missing GI’s is, IMO, unconscionable in light of the fact that it’s completely unnecessary.
This is probably beating a dead horse, but why WOULDN’T a hypothetical “giant cache of ICBMs” justify an invasion of Iraq?
Because the US does not have the legal authority to unilaterally enforce international law. To draw an analogy, the fact that you may be driving a car with a trunk full of heroin and assault rifles does not give me, a fellow citizen, the right to pull you over, drag you out of the car and kill you. The UN is the police force, Bush is just a vigilante cowboy.
No. Until you know for sure that inspections wouldn’t have found them before they were used, war is unnecessary, and therefore unjustified.
Hyperbole? No. Outright falsehood? Yes.
Your “feelings” don’t factor into the equation. No matter how you “feel” about this matter, the deaths of those GIs was not murder on the part of GWBush.
Ranchoth: “why WOULDN’T a hypothetical “giant cache of ICBMs” justify an invasion of Iraq?”
For the same reason that the United States’s possession of the largest cache of weapons in the world doesn’t justify an invasion of it. Wars are supposed to be fought in self-defense. That’s why the preemptive doctrine is so controversial, and why so many oppose it–even those who really hate Saddam. That’s not to say that, given the long history of UN resolutions against Iraq stemming back to its previous aggression, that the Security Council might not have legitimately weighed in favor of using force to back-up non-compliance. (There are some who would have questioned that legitimacy, to be sure, but it would have been a much harder case to make.) However, the pursuit of a Security Council was set aside (rashly in my view) and, so, the rationale for this war is preemptive.
Correction: last sentence should read, “the pursuit of a Security Council authorization of force was set aside…”
What should I call it then? What do you call it when a wreckless, irresponsible and selfish decision by the president results in the needless deaths (and possible torture) of his own troops?
The President started a war. The President has said, explicitly, that in this war, Americans will die. So that pretty much clinches that he is willingly spending human life. I suppose you could fit that into the legal definition of murder, certainly using Law and Order logic. But all people leading a war do this, and while none should sleep soundly about it, the morality of their action is based on what end they are trying to acheive, and whether its worth it or not.
If, hypothetically, it turned out that Bush was really just after totally selfish control of oil for his buddies (which is impossible in any simple sense), then would anyone have a problem calling what he did murder? (Just as sure as sending your partner in to be killed by drug dealers so you can swipe the stash from them.)
Alternatively, if Bush really is out to liberate people from a brutal dictator, would anyone, even DtC, really dare call it murder? (Just as sure as having to choose between the deaths of someone who is willing to die for a greater purpose, and the deaths of hundreds of innocent people)
The act of sending someone to die is the same, but the situation makes the difference, just like self-defense vs. murder.
During the period of occupation/military action by allied forces it is likely that some sort of chemical or biological will be found. We know that the British gave the Iraqis chemicals, the and US gave the Iraqis biologicals.
It is just a matter of scale and time. I suppose military action will find them quicker than UN inspectors, but whats the rush, and which option is more expensive in terms of lives and money.
I would be more upset about this illegal war, if I wasn’t still so enraged about Clinton’s illegal incursion into Kosovo.
I mean, Slobodon Milosevic was just minding his own business, with a little ethnic cleansing to fend off boredom. And Clinton decides to bypass the UN and ILLEGALLY do something in Kosovo?
Clinton is a murderer! How dare he meddle in Milosevic’s business? When Clinton is finally brought to justice for his murderous foray into Kosovo, I might have time to think about what Bush is doing now.
bravo, nightime.