I apologize if my attempt at an analogy was unclear. Although I recognize a difference betweeen the rule of law as it applies to individuals and nations, I was attempting to point out that the demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is well supported in American jurisprudence, and as such, such a demand for something so significant as overthrowing a foreign regime and rebuilding the country with American assets should deserve no less. To claim that this demand for proof is supportive of Hussein is equivalent to claiming that those calling for proof in the American legal system are pro-crime, which I find simply ridiculous. This analogy suffers the fate of all such comparisons in that there are obvious differences, but I think the analogy is apt for the point at hand, as to whether such activity can reasonable be claimed to be un-american or unpatriotic.
Of course, the issue of whether the removal of Hussein will be more or less likely to increase the chances of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists has been debated endlessly. Many who protest the war feel that the war will only increase the odds of these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Both sides are aiming for the same thing, the security of the US. One could just as easily propose that overthrowing one of the few secular leaders in a hotbed of religious fanaticism and paving the way for what will likely be yet another thinly veiled theocracy is much more likely to put the WMD (if they exist) into the hands of “terra”.
Many protesters that I am aquainted with feel that it is the last manner they have to express thier views given a legislature that seems to care little about what their non-donor consituents want, and a media that seems intent on fawning over the brilliance of the current administration while questioning very little of their policy. The last option is to take to the streets in a desperate desire to stop a president who has expressed his utter disdain for demonstrations, referring to them as little more than opinion polls. Some people need to be reminded who they work for.
You know, I could spin out lots of hypotheticals. But given how much is going to happen, or not, over the next few weeks, all I really want to do is wait.
Actually, going to war might cause us to sell out the Kurds, if that is the sticking point in a deal with the Turks. But, that deal just keeps getting reported wrong, so who knows? I’m not at all sold on going to war right this second. Let’s just keep moving in more troops and see what happens. All I said was to remember the free Iraqis. Sometimes I like to just lay something out there and see what people say. I could easily see either side selling out the poor Kurds. Some groups just don’t have any luck. The Kurds and Chechens should get together and commiserate.
December, are you perhaps aware that the US attacking Saddam Hussein on slim-to-none provocation is Osama’s wet dream of how to set aflame the mid-east?
You could equally, per your noxious OP, say that supporters of this war are Pro-Osama.
You’re going round in circles. So it’s only once our leaders have decided, in their infinite wisdom, to use military force or otherwise address the problem that we start supporting the other side by criticizing the solution? Damn. I’d prefer to leave a little more room for the possibility that my country isn’t always absolutely correct, if it’s all the same to you.
I know that almost all sincere Iraq war propponents believe that they oppose civilian casualties and the death of American servicepeople as well as opposing the potential threat of Iraqi aggression. However, I maintain they are actually creating a situation where civilian deaths and American casualties are inevitable. Three reasons why:
Using an American-led invasion to remove Saddam from power would certainly ensure that American troops, and American firepower(specifically bombs and airpower) would be the bulk or at least the forefront of the assault force. If the pro-war people succeed in convincing American forces to attack, they will also succeed in ensuring casualties among both Iraqi civilians and American Servicepeople, even though that wasn’t their goal. It would be cold comfort to the families of “regrettable civilian casualties” and the remaining family members of servicepeople lost in combat that the pro-war folks didn’t intend them to be victims.
In a tendentious political debate, the sides become polarized. Pro-war people typically find themselves ignoring or minimizing the casualties on both sides of the conflictl. Here are some examples:[ul][li] In the pro-war media, there was lots of criticism of casualty estimates done on behalf of the UN, but no alternate studies of anywhere near the rigor of the report being criticised were offered. They focused entirely on what the previous report might have gotten wrong.[] Some pro-war people actually will argue that Saddam is an imminent threat, although he hasn’t started a war in over 10 years and inspectors have been hard at work locating and dismantling his weapons of mass destruction. The US has maintained a “no fly zone” and economic sanctions on the country for the past decade have severely depressed Iraq’s economy, thereby degrading its ability to effectively maintain their military or build it up. (This was an argument made by guy I sat next to at a bus stop, who told me he was a trial lawyer who had argued cases before the Supreme Court, but admitted he’s not very in touch with “that whole international politics thingy”.) []Pro-war folks sometimes have very unrealistic views of how long it would take Saddam to acquire nuclear weapons. Given his resources being continually sapped by economic sanctions and the high level of scrutiny he’s under by the international community, especially UN weapons inspectors(folks trained to tell if a country is approaching nuclear capability) some continue to say “He’s almost there!”. Some of the more extreme Pro-war folks have claimed or implied that President Bush is more trustworthy than the UN reports and independent sources.[/ul]3. Bin Laden cheered the pro-war position. The phrase “How about you and him fight” echoed around the mountains of Afghanistan.[/li]
For these reasons, I believe that pro-war folks are encouraging the deaths of servicepeople and Iraqi civilians, even though that’s not their intent.
For those without NYT access, it’s about Eisenhower’s decision to contain Gamel Abdel Nasser rather than attempt to oust him by invasion as our European allies wanted. Here’s a snippet:
Honestly december, you can’t be providing this article as some factual support for your assertion. Showing that others share your opinion, particularly those who bring no other qualifications to the table other than having an opinion, is not particularly persuasive. I could easily provide as partisan and as poorly defended an article from the NYT editorial pages, but all that would result would be a couple of talking heads shouting at each other, and we would be left with a cable news program. The author kills her own arguement by pointing to examples like Mao in China. Guess what? We did not invade China, and it has changed for the better all on its own! We did not invade Iran during the Ayatollah Khomeini’s reign, and yet it has moderated all on its own. Putting Saddam forward as such a dire threat gives him far too much credit.
Looking to history, can you provide some factual evidence that protesters in the Vietnam war, the Korean conflict, or the Gulf War I in some way materially aided the enemy or in any way provided them with some “edge” in the battle (okay, I’ll give ya Jane Fonda’)? Sure, Vietnam vets returned home to an ungrateful nation (a burden of shame the Left will forever have to bear) which had a psychological effect upon our servicemen after they returned home. But what effect did it honestly have on the actual enemy.
Granted, there was no CNN then, but that hardly matters to leaders that control their nations media. Do you honestly think that the Iraqi media would be reporting anything that would sap the courage of the Iraqi people, no matter what the world outside was doing? :dubious:
Particularly in this case, what the non-Iraqi world does and says has utterly nothing to do with what the Iraqi public hears. Their media is about a truthful and unbiased as an Ari Fleisher press conference.
December
That was a boring and totally unconvincing article. The issue is not whether Saddam would LIKE to build an arsenal (I’m sure he would), it is whether he is able to. All I saw in the article that provides any hint in that direction is that he apparently bought some material that would be useful in producing chemical weapons. The fact remains that he is not perceptably stronger now than he was ten years ago, and he was not a threat then. You (and Bush) have presented absolutely no evidence that he is getting stronger rather than weaker.
The current crisis mentality is not based on anything Saddam has done recently or any significant intelligence discovery. It is based on Bush’s unsupported claim that Saddam is a threat. You might take Bush’s word for it since he shares your political philosophy, but I don’t. (I don’t trust politicians of any stripe.) Bush has obvious ulterior motives for a war: political popularity (I’m sure he loved the adulation from the Afgan war), avenge his father’s assassination attempt, distraction from economic problems and corporate scandals, feeding the arms industry, and oil. Politicians never give you their real reasons for doing things. The idea that Iraq is a threat to us looks like nothing but a phony scare tactic to justify Bush’s political agenda.
Maybe some people don’t want war because THEY DON’T WANT TO DIE FROM PAINFUL RADIATION POISONING FROM A TERRORIST ATTACK CAUSED BY GOING TO WAR?!?
If the Administration can officially give us at least one compelling reason why that initial CIA report (saying that Saddam was much less likely to give WMDs to terrorists without war than with war) was wrong, I’d personally feel a lot better, because it’d tell me that they were at least looking at the possible consequences with reasonable diligence.
Spavined Gelding
If every, or half of the politicians in USA would think like You, USA would again be the most popular country in the world.
As in the 50’ties.
There are many of us who support a Peaceful resolution to the upcoming War with Iraq,how anyone could state such a close minded opinion such as IE: We support Iraq because we do not support War is Ludacris. Godspeed & Peace In The Middle East.:smack:
Gotta call you on that one. For starters, there was nothing remarkable about an “ungrateful” nation as regards its soldiers returning from war. My own father was at Iwo Jima. He was shipped to California, given a bus ticket, and that was it. No parades, no outpourings of gratitude. Like a lot of his ilk, he cashed his bus ticket and spent the next six months drunk. Wearing his uniform, he was pretty much assured of some free drinks, and hitch hiking was easy. But sooner or later, the uniform wore out and he was just another drunk. He was 17.
From the Civil War to date, the myth of American generosity to its returning soldiers is just that: a myth. After the Civil War, armless and legless veterans were considered a pestilence, a public disgrace. They often simply died, morphine addicted and forgotten.
This is not the exception, it is regretably the rule. Blaming the Left for America’s ingratitude is scapegoating. Hypocrisy and self righteous piety is human, not left, not American. And here it comes again. The bombs will fall, the innocent will die, and stern, hard headed men will demand that all fall in line, that anyone who speaks against madness and horror speaks against “our troops”, and “hates America”. The old “spitting on returning soldiers” lie will probably get another reincarnation.
And I will wearily rise from my chair, and once again stand in the streets, listening to shrill and boring speeches from people who imagine they are leading me to where I already am.