48 replies to this topic

[Rov Judicata]

Reading back:

I think this is a bad case of miscommunication.

Chris, you've ackwnowledged and agreed that the Saddam regime is engaging in atrocities. Nobody is really disputing that.

You've also made it clear that you don't think this war is a good idea.

In effect, you are saying "Saddam's regime is a bad one, but this war is a bad idea because <reasons>.". *Nobody* thinks you're endorsing child abuse.

We *do* think that you're acknowledging the atrocities yet are against the war for other-- entirely honest and noble-- reasons. If that impression is wrong, just say so. .

Honest, I know no offense was intended.

[Drew]

Christopher, on Apr 9 2003, 02:56 PM, said:

You and I are totally in agreement about the atrocities of Saddam's regime, and I find it atrocious that you would imply otherwise.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. This goes back to an earlier conversation here. See Item #1 I think anyone who says "Yes, yes, there are atrocities, but . . ." is diminishing those atrocities; basically setting them aside for the sake of politics. I have no patience for those who would pay only lip-service to the atrocities committed by Saddam because their anti-war platform takes precedence.

Quote

I know I'm violating my responsibilities as a moderator here, but I don't care -- the implication of your words is utterly inexcusable. You have gone beyond the pale here. You, who are so hypersensitive in the Mod Lounge to the tiniest implication of aspersions against a poster -- now you turn around and accuse me of sanctioning child abuse???

Such histrionics. You know I didn't say you sanctioned child abuse. And my job in the Mod Lounge is to make sure that you and other moderators stay in line. That's my job. Being held to this scrutiny is part of YOUR job.

Edited by Drew, 09 April 2003 - 11:49 PM.

[Kosh]

I think the point was "How can anyone say that the war was not justified, after finding out that Sadam was holding Children in prison?"

Quote

Christopher said:
That's not the right question. The issue was not whether Saddam's regime was obscene -- that went without saying. The question was whether such obscenity is a valid excuse for a war of aggression (an unconstitutional one!), and whether the cure might be, in the long run, worse than the disease by triggering further chaos and Islamist revolution. Dumbing this down, as Bush insists on doing, to something as simple as "he's evil, we should do something about it" is, as always, profoundly missing the point. It's also hypocritical, so long as we continue to claim the likes of Saudi Arabia as a staunch ally.

As far as I'm concerened, after reading that story, every life lost and dollar spent was worth the cost. Congress voted to go along with this war, with 9 votes against in the Senate. I'm still proud of Senator Byrd for voting against it, and questioning the cost, and just asking a lot of questions in general, but after reading that story, I don't think there are any questions left about justifying the war.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Christopher: (an unconstitutional one!),

Say again?  As Commander in Chief Bush has the authority to employ American troops in combat.  The War Powers Act backs that fact; which gives the POTUS 90 days to utilize American troops following a consolation with the Congress.    

Quote

Christopher:  Just because you're fighting someone bad doesn't mean everything you do is automatically right, or that it won't have negative consequences down the road.

Just because you can sit around and claim that same thing you just said doesn’t mean you are doing the right thing either.  Too many times history has proven that inaction is just as dangerous as a action and in many cases far more dangerous.  Better to act now and try to dampen the negative consequences while we have the ability to than to let oppression and tyrants choose the time and place of combat.  

Quote

Christopher:    That we can't reduce the world to a comic book and assume that any action taken against an evil person will automatically result in rainbows and sunshine.

I find it just as preposterous that some believe that we should continue to what has amounted to over a decade of useless rhetoric and threats that in all failed to do a thing against Saddam.  

Quote

Christopher:    How dare you imply I'm in any way an apologist for the atrocities of that monster?

I’m with Rov on this one.  I don’t think Drew has implied in anyway that you support Saddam or have anything less than loathing for what he has done.  He is simply saying that it troubles him that some are less than willing to undertake a course of action which will remove him as a threat before he has the ability to kill more.

[Christopher]

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 9 2003, 03:02 PM, said:

^

I don't think that's what he meant Chris.

I don't think he understands (and I don't either) how people can advocate sitting by and doing nothing while people suffer. I can't understand it either; negative consequences may come of this, but we're protecting ourselves and freeing innocents.

I seriously doubt Drew meant that you were advocating atrocities.

Well, that's sure as hell what it sounded like.

Of course I'm not saying that nothing should be done.  I'm questioning the assumption that we're the ones who should be doing it, and whether we're doing it in the right way.

If a child is stuck out on thin ice, yes, you should try to save her if you can.  But driving a tank out onto the ice is not the way to do it.

The issue here is not whether the problem exists, but what the right solution is.  And when Drew implied that I didn't believe in the problem just because I didn't share his opinion about the solution, then he crossed the line from discussion to attack.

[Bad Wolf]

Going back to Zack's post about what it would take to change one's mind on this, my answer is about the same.

Nothing.  That some good may or may not come of this or has already come of this is not a justification because I will never believe in the motivations of those who started this war.

That said, I'm damned glad those kids are okay.

[Drew]

Kosh, on Apr 9 2003, 03:40 PM, said:

. . . but after reading that story, I don't think there are any questions left about justifying the war.

This and hundreds or even thousands of stories yet to be told. I read today about the Iraqi citizens of Basra who entered the prisons where they expected to find family members who were taken prior to the war. They are finding empty cells. What happened to all those prisoners? Is there some connection to those mass graves found near Basra?

We've already heard about torture with hot irons, with electrical cables attached to the genitals, women being hung upside down during menstruation in order to humiliate them, people being fed feet-first into plastic shredders . . . I'm convinced this war was justified. Any negative fallout may simply be the price we pay for doing the right thing.

But I'd love to have every single anti-war protester face those children and explain why they needed to stay imprisoned longer while "inspections" supposedly solved the problem.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Christopher:  If a child is stuck out on thin ice, yes, you should try to save her if you can. But driving a tank out onto the ice is not the way to do it.

Actually a LAV would do the job just as well as any boat.   

That said comparing Saddam’s regime to thin ice is a very dicey situation.  Thin ice as it goes doesn’t have a massive military force, a will to resist, a will to brutalize, and a will to murder.  Ice is a neutral natural force that doesn’t have a will to react and hasn’t been blocking all efforts for over a decade.  

Quote

Christopher:   And when Drew implied that I didn't believe in the problem just because I didn't share his opinion about the solution, then he crossed the line from discussion to attack.

Actually his very statement you questioned was:  "Yes, they held children prisoners, but . . ."  It indication a clear regard that a problem exists and that someone saying that understands a problem exists.  It just implies in the but part that they don’t agree with the amount of force that must be applied to rectify the situation.

[Julie]

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 9 2003, 03:53 PM, said:

That some good may or may not come of this or has already come of this is not a justification because I will never believe in the motivations of those who started this war.

When I read "I will never believe in the motivations of..." I can't help but wonder just how much your support (or rather, lack thereof) of the Bush administration is coloring your view of the events.  There are plenty of people on this board who are supporting the US actions in Iraq for completely honest motivations.  Isn't it possible that those who "started" this war share those motives?

And even if it isn't, it raises an interesting question: if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, does that make what the outcome any less good?

[Drew]

Julie, on Apr 9 2003, 04:18 PM, said:

And even if it isn't, it raises an interesting question: if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, does that make what the outcome any less good?

Dev F raised this very question in an older thread. It never got the discussion it should have.

[Rov Judicata]

Julie, on Apr 9 2003, 02:18 PM, said:

And even if it isn't, it raises an interesting question: if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, does that make what the outcome any less good?

It matters. If we're in there for the wrong reasons, then that will become apparent with time, and it will come back to bite us.

Our actions will tell.

If Bush does the wrong thing, then I'll criticize him for it. My support is not unconditional; it's conditioned on taking the moral route.

It's absolutely imperative that we went in on this for the right reason. If Lil is right and the motives of TPTB were ignoble, the Iraqi and American peoples will be screwed (for different reasons). And people like me will have been hte ones weilding the screwdriver.

I find the attitude that "Nothing could possibly justify this war" rather troubling myself. I'm also scared by the attitude of, "We've gotten rid of Saddam, so everything we do is right!".  But everybody is entitled to their opinion. .

[Kosh]

Quote

Of course I'm not saying that nothing should be done. I'm questioning the assumption that we're the ones who should be doing it, and whether we're doing it in the right way.

No one else could do it. We are the only Nation strong enough to do something of this nature, and not have to worry about another country coming in on Iraq's side. They are still allies with Russia and France, but neither Nation would dare enter the war with Us on the other side. We tried other methods for a very long time, the last twelve years, and now it looks like things only got worse.

Name any other coarse of action that would have freed those Kids?

So far, we have

100+ Children kept in Prison.

Hundreds of unburied bodies, probably people who were tortured over the years.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/2920039.stm


The only thing left is Chemical Weapons. Nothing of that nature has been found. Even the barrels found a few days ago have turned out to be something else. The article didn't say what they were, just that test showed they were not chemicals for weapons.

[The Tyrant]

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 9 2003, 02:44 PM, said:

Quote

Say again?  As Commander in Chief Bush has the authority to employ American troops in combat.  The War Powers Act backs that fact; which gives the POTUS 90 days to utilize American troops following a consolation with the Congress. 

Just out of curiousity.....and this isn't any sort of criticism about the war per se, as I do think Saddam's got to go, but can anybody tell me exactly when Congress made a declaration of war against Iraq? Call me crazy, but I thought that was a control put in place so a president couldn't just use the military to attack anyone he wanted whenever he felt like......everyone is calling this a war, but I don't remember hearing any formal declaration....am I dense and just missed it?

[Kosh]

Quote

But I'd love to have every single anti-war protester face those children and explain why they needed to stay imprisoned longer while "inspections" supposedly solved the problem.

One of the extreamly few times we will agree on somethig. I sure as hell couldn't do it.


So much for the "Feelin Good" I've had going today.

[Lover of Purple]

First a disclaimer: I am not saying that anyone here thinks or feels this way. I would never presume to do that. That said.......

It seems like some people's hatred of President Bush (or Republicans for that matter) drives them to mistrust his motives. They can not see him wanting to do the right thing. They can't see Republicans doing the right thing. The biggest sign of this is the people that scream that the war is about the oil. That's sad to think that they hate our preisdent (or a party) so much they would think he could sent thousands of men and women into danger over oil. That's kind of sad (and also a little 60ish ).

I wonder what the response would be if it was Clinton doing this? What did they say when Clinton sent troops into Kosovo (without even talking to the UN). I just kind of wonder about that. I don't expect answers, I just would like anyone who might think like that to contemplate their thinking.


BTW, I feel very proud when I see the Iraqi people cheering their freedom. And add to that the released children...well, it's been a feel good day!!

[G1223]

A couple of points. Kosh it was not that no else could it was no one else wanted to.

Richie the Presedent has the authority under the War powers acts to use the troops for 90 days before requiring the consent of congress.  Bush got the approval prior to activly using the troops in combat.

I think we need to be ready becasue this is going to be a long stay for our troops. We need to help a government form up as we did with West Germany after the war. This can be a great oppertunity to turn around and make a second  Turkey. Turkey is an islamic nation ,but it has elected represntation. It has by it's set up but not worded as such a seperation of church and state.

We need the international community know that the end is near to be ready to give the support to the new state and help ease burdens it will have.

[AnneZo]

Drew, on Apr 9 2003, 02:18 PM, said:

So everyone still against liberating Iraq?

Even before I opened this thread, I had a private bet with myself that a statement to this effect would appear in the first post.

I win chocolate!

Drat.  I don't seem to have any chocolate at my desk....

[Christopher]

Drew, on Apr 9 2003, 03:37 PM, said:

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. This goes back to an earlier conversation here. See Item #1 I think anyone who says "Yes, yes, there are atrocities, but . . ." is diminishing those atrocities; basically setting them aside for the sake of politics. I have no patience for those who would pay only lip-service to the atrocities committed by Saddam because their anti-war platform takes precedence.

And that is just more propagandistic twisting of my words.  I am not arguing based on "politics," but on my understanding of the history and cultural dynamics of the region, and on the basis of very legitimate concerns about the dangers of heavy-handed interference in a region whose people already resent our past meddling.

I'm not just spouting an "anti-war platform."  I'm a scholar, not an ideologue. Even if I approved of what our government was doing, I'd still insist that we all have an obligation to question it, to examine all the issues and be alert to all the possible consequences, good or bad.  Patriotism doesn't mean blind obedience, it means informed participation.  And that means we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our country not to let our immediate, visceral reactions lead us to forget the long-term risks and complications.

I would say, on the contrary, that it is you who are politicizing their suffering by claiming that it automatically justifies everything the administration decides to do, and that anyone who chooses to engage in critical debate, to ask questions rather than blindly embracing the party line, is somehow lacking in human decency.  You're not apologizing here -- you're compounding your insult by caricaturing and vilifying my position rather than bothering to LISTEN to it and THINK about it.

Besides, it's hypocritical to say that this war is only about fighting atrocities.  The US is doing nothing to fight the brutal oppression of women in our "ally" Saudi Arabia, or to end the horrific deprivation of the North Koreans, or to help the millions of starving, homeless children on our own streets.  There are all sorts of atrocities that the government is doing nothing to fight, and many that its own policies perpetuate.  Bush is closing schools.  He's ballooning the debt which our children will ultimately have to pay.  Just because one of his policy decisions has the fortuitous side effect of saving some Iraqi children doesn't make him a saint, or his policies right.

Of course the rescue of these children is a wonderful thing, but it's wrong to use it as an excuse for dodging the serious issues.  We have to bring our intellects to bear as well as our emotions, and we shouldn't let either one be clouded by the other.

Quote

Such histrionics. You know I didn't say you sanctioned child abuse. And my job in the Mod Lounge is to make sure that you and other moderators stay in line. That's my job. Being held to this scrutiny is part of YOUR job.

Which doesn't mean that you have license to ignore the standards to which you hold others.  On the contrary -- nobody deserves to place himself in the role of moral watchdog if he doesn't hold his own morality to a higher standard than anyone else's.  And I say that about Bush as well as you.

Kosh wrote:

Quote

I think the point was "How can anyone say that the war was not justified, after finding out that Sadam was holding Children in prison?"

That's just saying the ends justify the means, and I don't buy it.  Just because someone's doing something evil doesn't mean that any action taken against him is automatically good.  I'm happy that Saddam's out of power, but I would've been happier if it had been done through the actions of a global coalition with the full support of the UN and the Arab world.  We cannot impose peace on the Mideast, and if we try it will just lead to more violence.  The only solutions to the region's problems can come from within the region itself.

Besides, you want to talk about imprisoning children, what about US lawmakers' fervor to get children tried as adults even in capital cases?  Many other nations in the world find our justice system barbaric and immoral.  Does that give them the right to overthrow our government by military force?

No, all I'm hearing here is the exploitation of these children's plight for propagandistic gain, and the use of it as a smokescreen to dodge the larger questions that must be asked.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Kosh: Nothing of that nature has been found. Even the barrels found a few days ago have turned out to be something else. The article didn't say what they were, just that test showed they were not chemicals for weapons.

Jury is out on the barrels until they can bring up a properly equipped mobile detection lab.  Initial tests showed chemical weapons and then later ones said it could be pesticide or perhaps chemical weapons in a liquid non-weaponized form.    

Quote

RichieAvatar: Just out of curiousity.....and this isn't any sort of criticism about the war per se, as I do think Saddam's got to go, but can anybody tell me exactly when Congress made a declaration of war against Iraq? Call me crazy, but I thought that was a control put in place so a president couldn't just use the military to attack anyone he wanted whenever he felt like......everyone is calling this a war, but I don't remember hearing any formal declaration....am I dense and just missed it?

Here you go.  This is all the Constitutional and legal backing to give the President the authority to take the United States into military conflict.  It isn’t a formally declared war but then we haven’t had one of them since World War II.  To be technical it is a very large expeditionary force fighting a police action.  

Quote

The Constitution of the United States of America: Article II: Section II: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,

Quote

: The War Powers Act of 1973: CONSULTATION: SEC. 3:The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Quote

: The War Powers Act of 1973: CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: SEC. 5. B: Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Quote

: The War Powers Act of 1973: CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: SEC. 5. C: 
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

There you go.

[Bad Wolf]

Drew, on Apr 9 2003, 10:21 PM, said:

Julie, on Apr 9 2003, 04:18 PM, said:

And even if it isn't, it raises an interesting question: if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, does that make what the outcome any less good?

Dev F raised this very question in an older thread. It never got the discussion it should have.

the problem is that it's still for the wrong reasons.

Lil