Write your senators to deny sweeping powers for the president!

[El_Kabong]

Quote]I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it, to see WHY people are against this war, why protestors can’t see the big picture, why people don’t understand that Iraq has broken EVERY UN sanction, why people can’t foresee a bomb in downtown Manhattan…and all the evidence points to political reasons (don’t want Republicans to regain the Senate, don’t like the President, protest just to protest like good little “enlightened” college-age liberals do) rather than people actually caring about the safety of our nation.
[/Quote]

Here, maybe I can help. Point the first, “Iraq has broken every UN sanction”: has the UN specifically directed that the United States invade Iraq on its behalf? Hint: no.

Now, I invite you to ask yourself the following questions, in sequence: "Should the US have deposed Saddam 2 years ago? Should the US have deposed Saddam 5 years ago? Should the US have deposed Saddam 10 years ago? Should the US have deposed Saddam 15 years ago? When you stop answering yes, explain why.

Point the second “why can’t people foresee a bomb in downtown Manhattan?”, well, I can’t foresee an IRAQI-backed bomb in downtown Manhattan. Why can you? Why do you not foresee an Iranian-backed bomb in downtown Manhattan? Why do you not foresee a Libyan-backed bomb in downtown Manhattan?

Points the third, fourth and fifth: “don’t want Republicans to regain the Senate, don’t like the President, protest just to protest like good little “enlightened” college-age liberals do) rather than people actually caring about the safety of our nation”.

Are you familiar with the term “straw man”? I believe you are attempting to create one there. I oppose Bush’s proposed invasion for none of the above reasons. I oppose it on the basis that a) IMO, Iraq poses no clear, significant and immediate threat to US interests domestically or regionally; b) that a unilateral invasion of Iraq, currently disapproved of by nearly every other country on earth, will set a political precedent that is likely to have detrimental results for the US in the long term; c) needless suffering is bad.

Finally, this:

Appareantly you don’t give a damn about US fighters lost in the first Iraq war. I only wish you were in their place.

That war was concluded many years ago, in our favor. The notion that we must invade more than a decade later, to avenge lives lost in a war WE WON, is nonsensical and repellent.

[tracer]

*Originally posted by Bob55 *
Now go download the videos of planes flying into big tall buildings, people jumping out of buildings to their death, firemen being crushed under 100 stories…

… which, as I seem to recall, were perpetrated by the Al Qaeda organization, not by Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Oh, wait, I see your logic – “Al Qaeda doesn’t like the U.S., and Iraq doesn’t like the U.S., so therefore Iraq and Al Qaeda must be in cahoots.” I guess Al Qaeda must be in cahoots with Cuba and North Korea then, too.

Mr. Bush is just trying to prevent future acts of terrorism,

And how, pray tell, is getting the rest of the Islamic nations even more angry at us going to prevent future acts of terrorism?

[Gaudere]

sleestak:

WOW, you little twit …then you are an idiot. Appareantly you don’t give a damn about US fighters lost in the first Iraq war. I only wish you were in their place.

[Moderator Hat ON]

sleestak, your comments were NOT AT ALL appropriate for this forum. Don’t do this again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**
… which, as I seem to recall, were perpetrated by the Al Qaeda organization, not by Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Oh, wait, I see your logic – “Al Qaeda doesn’t like the U.S., and Iraq doesn’t like the U.S., so therefore Iraq and Al Qaeda must be in cahoots.” I guess Al Qaeda must be in cahoots with Cuba and North Korea then, too.
And how, pray tell, is getting the rest of the Islamic nations even more angry at us going to prevent future acts of terrorism? **

Let them be angry. If they’re tempted to take any war-like action based on that anger, though, let them also know for a stone cold fact that we will kill them. They’re never going to be our friends, so Machiavelli’s conundrum is rather easily resolved in this case.

Sorry, you wanted an explanation.

[Bricker]

Well, the events predicted in the OP have come to pass. The House and the Senate have both passed authorizations for the President to use force in Iraq in case diplomacy fails to achieve our desired end.

Far from being the “…darkest days of American democracy…” and “…throwing away one of the most basic tenets of my country’s democracy…” I would point out, again, that the country’s system worked as it was supposed to. The President asked for Congress’ support, and the democratically elected senators and representatives gave it to him.

So - American democracy is safe, despite the dire warnings which began this thread.

I wonder if, underlying the OP’s beliefs, is the unspoken sense that this only happened because the senators and representatives were afraid that they’d lose elections if they voted against a war resolution - in other words, that they did this out of fear for their jobs, rather than acceptance of the plan.

If this is so… it’s still our brand of democracy in action. They were responsive to the voice of the public.

I wonder if the unspoken fear from the OP is that the People were fooled, woodwinked, and didn’t really know what was best for their country – that important decisions like this should be left in the hands of the People, who obviously don’t know what the enlightened view of the world calls for in situations such as these.

If that’s a true description of the OP’s unspoken fears… then I’d humbly suggest it is he that does not understand our American system of democracy.

• Rick
  ** I keep saying “our system of democracy” to distinguish our republic from the true democracy, the creature of poli-sci courses *

[Snickers]

Originally posted by Bob55

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it, to see WHY people are against this war, why protestors can’t see the big picture, why people don’t understand that Iraq has broken EVERY UN sanction, why people can’t foresee a bomb in downtown Manhattan…and all the evidence points to political reasons (don’t want Republicans to regain the Senate, don’t like the President, protest just to protest like good little “enlightened” college-age liberals do) rather than people actually caring about the safety of our nation.

I’m just trying to get to the root of it, to see WHY people are FOR this war, why hawks can’t see the big picture, why people don’t understand that the “evidence” presented for Iraq having WMD is sketchy at best (let alone actually using them), why people insist upon equating 9/11 terrorist organizations with the government of a soverign state, why invading a Middle-Eastern country could lead to more animosity, more hatred directed towards the United States and its citizens from that region…and all the evidence points to political reasons (don’t want to lose seats in the Senate, don’t want the economic crisis in this country to regain attention, don’t like other countries controlling our oil supply, want to further democracy in other soverign nations like good little “enlightened” neo-colonialist right-wingers do) rather than people actually caring about the safety of our nation.
Snicks