# The rush to war: Assessing both UK and US checks and balances **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472 "2003-01-28T14:18:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/41 "2003-01-31T15:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > The entire country has been debating this issue at length since last spring. Nope. The point you (and **Sua** , **Truth Seeker** , et al) are missing is that, while debate over the need for this war has been incrementally increasing for the past six months (_not_ “since last spring” - remember the “you don’t introduce a new product in August” justification for the timing?), the questions raised by that debate have been consistently evaded by the decision makers. No new evidence has come to light in those six months to support the notion that Iraq has or is developing the capability to deliver WMD beyond its borders, that Iraq intends to do so, or that if so, such programs, capabilities or intentions cannot continue to be contained using the methods of the past decade in conjunction with renewed inspection. Bush has been making the same “Saddam is evil and we’re fightin terrism” case since September. **Latro** is essentially correct; the decision was made before the troop movements began. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/42 "2003-01-31T15:42:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zorro \* > \*\*I just want to answer the original question. I’m not happy with the UK’s checks and balances. There are no effective ones. This is in fact a one-party state. Tony has an overwhelming Commons majority, so if he says the Earth is flat, the Labour Party whips will make sure that the statement is approved in the Commons. Then if the Lords pipe up and point out that the Earth is in fact spherical, Tony can hit them with the Parliament Act and overrule them. > > The only thing that the people can do about it is to exercise out ancient right to petition, which is one of the most pathetic attempts at pretending to give the people some control of their government ever. > > And of course Tony doesn’t actually have to ask for anyone’s opinion to start a war. > > I’m going to Hyde Park on February 15th. And then Tony can dismiss half a million marchers as a bunch of marginal malcontents. Just like he did for the Countryside March. > > Christ, it’s about as democratic as Zimbabwe here. \*\* The Govt has banned the march from Hyde Park on the grounds that the grass might get damaged or some similar specious load of crap. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/43 "2003-01-31T15:47:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Well, how about we let them speak for themselves? Here is the full text of the letter the eight European nations sent to the Washington Post: \*\* This is completely disengenious and you appear intelligent enough to realise it. Eight leaders of 8 states are not the same as 8 nations. You know it and I know it. So why the mendacity? Talk about cheap debating tricks. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/44 "2003-01-31T16:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\* > One of the lessons I learned from the Vietnam era was that Presidents can lie and government leaders can be willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans to protect those lies and their political careers. I also learned that protests can make a positive difference. \*\* Ah really? And the spitting on and throwing feces those that sacrifice everything they have, including life, for you and your country while calling them baby killers and threatening their families have taught you nothing? _Those kinds_ of protests have the posotive effect of shaming our sons and daughters, like Ron Kovic, to “express” their first amendment rights? I don’t think even the commies had as effective brain washing tactics. The “positive” thing I learned from such ineptitude is I am more than willing to go to jail over the first amendment. And I don’t mean I would be expressing my freedom of speech, but something a little more expressive and illegal against those that cross the line. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/45 "2003-01-31T19:21:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tagos \* > \*\*This is completely disengenious and you appear intelligent enough to realise it. Eight leaders of 8 states are not the same as 8 nations. You know it and I know it. So why the mendacity? > > Talk about cheap debating tricks. \*\* That’s right. The leaders democratically elected to speak and act for their respective countries don’t speak and act for their country. Why the mendacity? Why the cheap debating tricks? > [@](#): > > _by xenophon_ > Nope. The point you (and Sua, Truth Seeker, et al) are missing is that, while debate over the need for this war has been incrementally increasing for the past six months (not “since last spring” - remember the “you don’t introduce a new product in August” justification for the timing?) If we’ve only been arguing about this since September, how do you explain the GD link [provided by Truth Seeker](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99542&highlight=iraq) from November 200 **1**? I know we Dopers are brilliant, but I don’t think we are precognizant. 😉 Sua ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/46 "2003-01-31T19:41:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tagos \* > **This is completely disengenious and you appear intelligent enough to realise it. Eight leaders of 8 states are not the same as 8 nations.** If the leaders of these nations cannot speak for these nations, who can? BTW, why should popular opinion of the citizens of these nations carry the day? Why should their voices be the ultimate arbiter? I think Giovanni Italiano or Ivan Czech on the street know a _whole lot less_ about the situation that others do. Why should anyone listen to what they say? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/47 "2003-01-31T19:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > I know we Dopers are brilliant, but I don’t think we are precognizant. And I didn’t realize we represent the official national debate on any subject. Notice in **december** ’s thread the discussion is based on (as usual) an op-ed theoretical examination. When did the Bush administration begin pushing for an Iraq confrontation? When did the national debate begin in earnest? (IIRC, about the same time the decision was publicized.) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/48 "2003-01-31T19:59:08Z")
Saen said: > [@](#): > > Ah really? And the spitting on and throwing feces those that sacrifice everything they have, including life, for you and your country while calling them baby killers and threatening their families have taught you nothing? Those kinds of protests have the posotive effect of shaming our sons and daughters, like Ron Kovic, to “express” their first amendment rights? I don’t think even the commies had as effective brain washing tactics. The “positive” thing I learned from such ineptitude is I am more than willing to go to jail over the first amendment. And I don’t mean I would be expressing my freedom of speech, but something a little more expressive and illegal against those that cross the line. So you are willing to commit illegal acts against a sixty year old retired teacher who believe in freedom of speech enough not to report your threatening post to a moderator? You don’t believe in freedom of speech. You believe in your right to harrass others. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/49 "2003-01-31T20:02:49Z")
“Let’s face it - the debate has been carried out, and Bush’s side won.The American people support the war.” Pure nonsense. 1)Only 49% of the American public supports the use of large number of ground troops in Iraq. 2)Less than 50% think that Bush has presented enough evidence. 3)More than 50% think that UN inspectors should given a few more months to carry out inspections. 4)Less than 50% support an attack without UN support. And these numbers have barely budged since Bush started talking about Iraq. Bush has simply failed to convince a large majority of Americans to support a major ground war against Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/50 "2003-01-31T20:05:34Z")
tagos said: > [@](#): > > The Govt has banned the march from Hyde Park on the grounds that the grass might get damaged or some similar specious load of crap. tagos, are you serious? The government in England can do that? Do you think demonstrators will take to the streets instead? Was this by order of the PM? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/51 "2003-01-31T20:07:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*And I didn’t realize we represent the official national debate on any subject. And I didn’t realize that there was an official national debate on any subject. Things get proposed, get debated in Op-ed pieces and around the water cooler, those interested write their Congressperson, etc. In any event, a very cursory search finds a [March 8, 2002 BBC article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1861971.stm) discussing the troubles Tony Blair was facing due to his support for possible US military action against Iraq. If you want, I’ll find US sources from then and earlier, but Blair wouldn’t have faced opposition in March 2002 for supporting an American position **if the Bushies hadn’t put forward a position before then.** Sua ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/52 "2003-01-31T20:15:47Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sam Stone wrote: "Let’s face it - the debate has been carried out, and Bush’s side won.The American people support the war."** > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **Pure nonsense. > 1)Only 49% of the American public supports the use of large number of ground troops in Iraq. > 2)Less than 50% think that Bush has presented enough evidence. > 3)More than 50% think that UN inspectors should given a few more months to carry out inspections. > 4)Less than 50% support an attack without UN support.** **CyberPundit** , what poll is that? I’d like to review the specific poll questions asked to the subjects, as I’ve found that poll questions can be weighted to carry considerable bias. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/53 "2003-01-31T20:22:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*1)Only 49% of the American public supports the use of large number of ground troops in Iraq. > 2)Less than 50% think that Bush has presented enough evidence. > 3)More than 50% think that UN inspectors should given a few more months to carry out inspections. > 4)Less than 50% support an attack without UN support. \*\* [OTOH](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77202,00.html) > [@](#): > > According to the latest FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) support U.S. military action against Iraq – the same level of support as before the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Among “hawks,” that support climbs to 83 percent, and even among “doves” a majority still supports ousting Saddam (52 percent). ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/54 "2003-01-31T20:24:41Z")
“If the leaders of these nations cannot speak for these nations, who can?” The leaders have the constitutional authority to make decisions for the country. That doesn’t mean they “speak for these nations” when , as in Britain, public opinion is clearly opposed to their decision. “I think Giovanni Italiano or Ivan Czech on the street know a whole lot less about the situation that others do” The decision to go to war or not is not ultimately a technical decision but a matter of value judgment so public opinion matters.Otherwise why bother with democracy at all? Why not simply have a dictatorship of the most knowlegable policy wonks in the country. Bordeland, You can find all the polls here. [http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm](http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/55 "2003-01-31T20:25:50Z")
Sua, the assertion was that this war has received the most comprehensive debate of any war “in history”. My argument is that the debate didn’t start in earnest until the administration announced its intentions to prepare for war, and that that debate has not been joined in any meaningful sense by the folks with their finger on the trigger. You can cite speculative articles going back to 1991 if you wish, but that says nothing about the level of actual debate or the degree to which this war has been justified. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/56 "2003-01-31T20:28:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I know we Dopers are brilliant, but I don’t think we are precognizant. \*\* I just _knew_ someone was going to say that. I’m not quite sure what qualifes as a “debate” for you, **xenophon41**. Do you only count the scheduled proceedings of the Oxford Union or what? The trial balloons sent up over a year ago started an international debate that has run continuously since then. Let’s flip the burden of going forward to you. Can you point to a single example of a proposed military action that has been discussed for longer and in more detail? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/57 "2003-01-31T20:31:05Z")
December, “Military action” is not the same as a major ground war which is being planned. So for the kind of war being planned Bush doesn’t have a clear majority behind him. From pollingreport: “Please tell me whether or not you would support the following kinds of U.S. military action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. What about [see below]? Would you support this kind of military action or not?” Then there are three choices : using air-strikes without ground troops, special forces and “Sending in large numbers of U.S. ground troops to ensure control of the country”. There are clear majorities for the first two but only 49% for the third. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/58 "2003-01-31T20:37:23Z")
_shakes head_ You guys. Surely you recognize that the Bush administration has been pressing for more aggressive action than has the European contingent. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were declaring inspections useless before they were resumed. All the previous talk of unilateralism. And since Iraq is in the _desert_ you want to go to war in the winter. They didn’t have time last winter–the focus was Afghanistan. By the time that outcome was clear, it was way too late to go to Iraq. This winter, they have to hurry up and get the support before spring, lest our guys are out roasting on the sand in biochem suits. And thus to those who are wondering what the plan here is, what are we going to do with this beastly little bundle of Iraq once we’ve got our paws on it, well… all this pressure from Bush & Co. seems awful lot like a “rush”. Obviously to those who think “it’s about bloody time we kicked that wanker’s ass for good”, it doesn’t seem like a rush at all. Perception and semantics. > [@](#): > > Can you point to a single example of a proposed military action that has been discussed for longer and in more detail? Lusitania sinks, May 7, 1915. US declares war on Germany, April 6, 1917 In closing, Carthage must be destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/59 "2003-01-31T20:39:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*Then there are three choices : using air-strikes without ground troops, special forces and “Sending in large numbers of U.S. ground troops to ensure control of the country”. > There are clear majorities for the first two but only 49% for the third. \*\* That’s a textbook example of a loaded question. Here’s why - the word “large” is unnecessary to the sense of the question, and it may cause some subjects to presuppose a large number of American casualties. I fully admit that it’s very difficult to pose completely unbiased questions. It’s good that there are opposing polls out there, to provide balance. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472/60 "2003-01-31T20:41:17Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by december \* \*\*[OTOH](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77202,00.html) quote: > > ## According to the latest FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) support U.S. military action against Iraq – the same level of support as before the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Among “hawks,” that support climbs to 83 percent, and even among “doves” a majority still supports ousting Saddam (52 percent). > > \*\* I don’t know about Fox News but this is from [The News Hour with Jim Lehrer](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/opinions_1-24.html). "RAY SUAREZ: For a look at how all of this is playing across the country, we’re joined by Andrew Kohut, director of the **Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.** Andy, what do your latest surveys and samplings show us about citizens’ sympathies about war?" ANDREW KOHUT: What they have been showing for sometime, this is a very tough decision for the American public. They feel vulnerable and they feel that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and he’s got to go. There is no consensus as there was in Afghanistan when 70 or 80 percent said we have to do it and all the polls were in agreement. What we find is 68 percent, and we have a slide giving qualified support for the idea of using potentially using military force against Saddam Hussein. But one of the qualifications is we’ve got to do it with allies. _We say well, should we do it even if allies don’t join us, we get down to 26 percent. That’s one of the most important qualifications the public has consistently said, we have to do this as part of an international coalition_(emphasis added) ‘RAY SUAREZ: What about the status of what’s being turned up by the inspectors in Iraq? Is that looming large in people’s minds as they follow the story?’ 'ANDREW KOHUT: They’re following the story. It was one of the highest rated stories this month, and the American public, we tested some scenarios. And when we find – we ask people what should we do if we find that weapon inspectors find that Iraq is hiding weapons, 76 percent say I’d favor the use of force. _But when we get to the complicated thing that there are no weapons but Iraq can’t prove otherwise, there are no weapons, but the inspectors can’t give us assurances that there aren’t any weapons, we only get 29 or 25 percent. So the public wants some real hard evidence as a basis on which to commit and risk the lives of American men and women. The American public doesn’t go easily into war. And it recognizes the gravity, it feels threatened, but it wants to see-- it wants to see more and it wants to see the president make the case._(emphasis added)" Or at least some of us recognize the gravity of going to war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rush-to-war-assessing-both-uk-and-us-checks-and-balances/151472.md?page=4)