There are more than two sides to this I’m afraid. That’s rather simplistic, if that were the case I could say “you’re either with us or Saddam” and I’d be correct? No, so there’s more than just two. There’s probably as many sides represented here as there are people here.
I like to hear as many as possible.
X~Slayer, you asked for an elaboration on how the Administration is eroding or attempting to erode the Constitution of the U.S. I am a member of Amnesty International, a widely respected and Nobel Peace Prize winning organization that works for human rights around the world. This statement from the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA was released to the press yesterday. You will find an “elaboration” in his statement. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa01252003.html
I will respond to some of the other things that you have said later.
Pax
“Part of my reasoning for that is that other people who are not in that administration but who have had access to the intelligence are strongly in favor of the administration’s actions. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, for example. And 77 Senators. And all 15 members of the Security Council who signed 1441.”
I think it should be obvious that not all the above were offering full-blooded support for the Bush policy as a whole especially with respect to a possible war.
I have to yet to hear Bill Clinton ,for instance, advocate an invasion of Iraq. Perhaps you might care to explain why Carl Levin , who was Chairman of Armed Services Committee, has been such an ardent opponent of the Bush policy. Surely he was in the loop as far as intelligence information was concerned.
And it was a widely reported fact that a substantial chunk of the professional military (as opposed to civilian Pentagon ideologues) were highly skeptical of war Would that be the case if Iraq was an unambigous threat to the US? What about the CIA which was also reported as being highly skeptical of the need for invastion?
"And when I look at the critics of the U.S., I see a lot of self interest and duplicity. "
What about the Bush administration? Self-interest and duplicity plays no role in their decisions? Can you provide actual evidence that countries which oppose the war are more dupicitous and self-interested than those which support the war?
I guess you didn’t hear this then:
Clinton also recently said that while he hopes the U.S. can get the backing of the U.N., he thinks the U.S. should retain the option of going it alone if necessary.
The first statement was made months ago before the latest ratcheting up of rhetoric and neither statement indicates support for invasion.
The best indication that this war isn’t based on some objective security threat was the months-long battle of the leaks in the NYTimes and WaPo which made it perfectly clear that significant elements in the professional military,CIA and State Department felt that containment was working just fine. They may be putting up a united public front now but there is absolutely no indication that anything new has turned up to change their minds on the fundamentals. According to Time one third of senior officers question the need for a of pre-emptive war with Iraq. If Iraq was such an obvious threat would there be such signficant dissent? I don’t think so.
I have gotten behind in my reading in this thread so someone may have made these points already. Excuse me if that is true.
There is another possibility: There is no proof.
Why would the Allies choose to repudiate or ignore proof? And why can’t our Allies be trusted?
Response from X~Slayer:
I have seen in my lifetime a megalomaniac forced into resignation from the Presidency. But I strongly agree that certain members of Congress are as much to blame as the Administration. And we are in agreement that we cannot fight this war based on speculation.
X~Slayer said:
Your point is well-taken. I’ve seen petrol prices in Europe and they are terribly high.
From X~Slayer:
I don’t think that anyone would describe the CEO of Halliburton Oil as a “wildcatter.” The same goes for Bush.
[quote]
and couldnt the US achieve that very same goal by targeting north, central and south american oil resources?
[quote]
Uhh…no.
[quote]
2. Not only was there an assassination attempt on Bush’s father, but also Laura Bush would have been killed if the attempt had been successful.
You don’t have to be a member of the mob to want revenge.
[quoteseriously, I dont think so. Even if we do get rid of Saddam, I personally would like to get rid of OBL as well.[/quote]
What would be really an embarrassment to Bush is if neither of them are captured.
Would you elaborate?
[quote]
uuuhh…that would be Clinton …
[/quote
I think someone has already responded to that point with a reminder.
6. A majority of Americans believe that terrorist acts in the U.S. would increase if we go to war.
I’m assuming that you are not implying that there are no unidentified flying objects, but only that there are no alien space ships, etc. I don’t believe that a majority of the people believe that. Nevertheless, I understand your point. Let’s home that the majority is wrong on this one.
My way of dealing with Bush’s Presidency is to protest his war-mongering.
I assume that you are not serious.
That doesnt mean he doesnt have it. Mayhaps if he did provide proof, that proof might cease to exist the day after.
It is possible that Bush has proof that he can’t share yet. And I hope that his perceived reason for going to war does cease to exist. Don’t you?
That you for taking the time to pursue my comments. It is much appreciated although sometimes we disagree.
Pax
We should pay equal attention on why there should be action taken.