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.
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?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
“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.
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?
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 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Lusitania sinks, May 7, 1915.
US declares war on Germany, April 6, 1917
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.
"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.
