Bush is full of crap

[John Ho]

I just saw his remarks today and his ongoing attempts to link Iraq to "Al Quaeda type organizations." He also warned Saddam and his generals to not kill civilians or destroy infrastructure. Of course if we invade lots of civilians will be killed and lots of roads destroyed, intentionally or not.

I've decided I don't trust the President's judgement or truthfulness nor his senior advisors' and will not support any invasion unless the UN approves. The civilian cost in Iraq will be too high for our country to go at it alone. We will not only kill thousands of innocent people but make new enemies all around the world. We already see the effect this has on our relations with Europe let alone less friendly regions.

The world is better off if Saddam is out of power but the cost of an invasion without broad international support is way too high. Now if the UN agrees - bombs away.

If the UN does not sanction a war then Bush needs to be voted out next election. He is not a great domestic leader and with his baggage our international leadership is even worse.

[marbles]

"The world is better off if Saddam is out of power but the cost of an invasion without broad international support is way too high. Now if the UN agrees - bombs away."

--I'm amazed at how popular this argument is. So you're saying that it's fabulous for us to attack Iraq, provided France says it's okay?? It's ridiculous!

If we have just cause to attack, we should attack. If not, we should not. Conveniently, the UN will likely support us if we have overwhelming evidence (which we won't likely ever have), but they should not be a deciding factor on this by any means.

It would be nice to have the support of the UN, but how could their support (or lack thereof) have anything to do with how correct our actions are?

[adios]

Polls have shown that the position John espoused is the most popular position in the USA though. IMO Bush hasn't done a very good job of handling this situation from a public relations point of view. I understand your points though.

"the UN will likely support us if we have overwhelming evidence (which we won't likely ever have)"

My suspicion is that we actually have quite a bit of evidence. I'm sure much of it's classified (flame away guys) and I'm also fairly certain that members of congress are privy to it.

Saw Lieberman today was calling for a multilateral effort in post Saddam Iraq. This seems to be a good idea to me.

The new UN resolution proposed by Bush is turning out to be at least politically embarassing for Bush and possibly politically disastorous. Gotta go.

[IrishHand]

You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?

I find it very interesting how appaled many Americans are by democracy.

[IrishHand]

My suspicion is that we actually have quite a bit of evidence.

This is one of my favorite arguments. I have no doubt that our intelligence services know a lot more about many things than they're interested in sharing with the public - and that's as it should be. Protecting sources of information is crucial, and oftentimes revealing that information will reveal its source and therefore compromise it. However, in a matter like this - if indeed we posses "quite a bit of evidece" - it would seem the height of prudence to discretely suggest to the inspectors that...umm...maybe you fine fellows might like to look in this location. Or maybe a day trip to this site might be a good idea. Far as I can tell, that would be the perfect way for US intelligence about supposed WMD to turn into a "smoking gun" which might affect US, UN and world opinion.

The whole "we know all this, but aren't going to tell anyone even though that would solve most of our PR problems", followed by the post-invasion "look at all this nasty stuff we 'found'" doesn't fly with me.

[Glenn]

"You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?"

No. Not at all. The majority of people in the world are too uneducated and uninformed to make a decision in the matter.

[Glenn]

What about the charge that the Iraqis are spying on the inspectors? Colin's UN presentation wasn't great, but I thought he did at least give strong evidence that this was occuring.

[marbles]

"You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?"

--Of course it matters, but that's not the argument. The argument is, if the UN approves of an attack, then it's okay. I just think that's nuts. Attacking is either correct or not. Whether or not the UN approves is little more than a sidenote.

example: In '91, we did exactly what the UN approved by getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Now, most liberals and conservatives alike agree that we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam while we had him on his heels.

Because we did exactly what was "approved" by the UN at the time, we're in the situation we're in now. We would very likely be better off now if we had either done nothing or wiped him out. The approved course of action was basically the worst of the three. My point is, UN approval does not make an action correct or incorrect. But the polls show that millions of Americans believe that it does. Ludicrous.

[marbles]

"Far as I can tell, that would be the perfect way for US intelligence about supposed WMD to turn into a "smoking gun" which might affect US, UN and world opinion."

--I agree with you here, Irish. I believe that we have more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he's hiding something, but it's the hard evidence that's so hard to come by. The guy's slick, but then, he didn't go to Evil Medical School for nothing!

[IrishHand]

The majority of people in the world are too uneducated and uninformed to make a decision in the matter.

(a) So are the majority of Americans - and that doesn't stop them from either voting or serving in office.
(b) Most polls tend to be taken from the educated portions of each nation, since that's the portion capable of doing things like reading and using computers. (eg. Magazine polls tend to be polls of their readers, not polls of the poor illeterate stooge who cleans latrines for a living.)

[Clarkmeister]

"example: In '91, we did exactly what the UN approved by getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Now, most liberals and conservatives alike agree that we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam while we had him on his heels.

Because we did exactly what was "approved" by the UN at the time, we're in the situation we're in now."

That was entirely our fault.

In the interest of getting the Global OK to stabilize the region with force, we dedided to lie and frame the issue as "we need to liberate Kuwait" rather than the the more truthful "we need to kick this madman's butt, stablize our oil supply, and ensure future stability by establishing military bases in the area"

If we were honest, we could have then kicked him out under the "stablize the area" mandate, but since we decided to be disingenuous, we essentially tied our own hands.

[IrishHand]

What sort of 'charge' is that? Spying on foreigners who are in your country? If that's a crime, every country is in trouble.

[andyfox]

Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?

Bush said that "the danger with Iraq is that he can strike in the neighborhood and the danger with Iraq is that he has got the willingness and capacity to train al-Qaida type
organizations and provide them with equipment to hurt Americans." I thought we had supposedly proven an association between al-Qaida and Iraq. Now its just enough that they have the willingness and capacity.

Isn't surrounding Iraq with 150,000 troops, threatening to use nuclear weapons and threatening the leader of the coutnry with a war crimes trial the best way to ensure that they will strike at Americans?

Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A piece of geography?

The conclusion one must draw is that the administration is looking at Iraq as a piece of geography indeed, one that is controlled by a person not amenable to our wishes. Saudi Arabia not only has the willingness and capacity but is a proven training ground for terrorists. But they are more amenable to our economic wishes.

Hundred of thousands of troops in post-war Iraq while the economy of the country goes to hell. Sad days for our country and the world.

[MMMMMM]

Interestingly, the "vast majority of people on Earth" are rather uneducated and live under some form of totalitarian system. Sure, they have a right to their opinion, but mightn't their opinion be quite uninformed, not to say biased or wrong? And most member nations of the U.N. are totalitarian states too.

When the U.N. represents predominantly democratically-styled governments, then let's listen to the U.N. a bit more. As long as it represents so many garbage governments run by iron-fisted thugs who were never elected in the first place, I don't see why we should give too much credence to their opinions (other than taking them into account for diplomatic reasons).

Also, a great many fanatic Islamists--Islamofascists if you wish--oppose us on nearly everything. Does that mean they're right? Yet, interestingly, quite a few of the Gulf states will be in some way aiding our war effort;-)

Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves long for regime change. The 4 million Iraqi exiles living in Europe were noticeably absent from the so-called "peace demonstrations" held recently--ever wonder why? They stayed away because they want regime change in Iraq--not a "peace" which will allow Saddam to continue his tyranny. Interestingly, they hold their own "peace demonstation" in Trafalgar Square every Saturday--calling for removal of Saddam. Where have the hordes of recent "peace demonstrators" been? Not at that regular rally.

If the majority of the rest of the world favors something, it doesn't necessarily mean they're right.

Now I understand you think we're wrong anyway on this issue, and you're just using a measure of world opinion to support your contention. But try and think of something--anything--in which your own opinion differs strongly from "the majority of the rest of the world" and maybe you'll see my point a bit better.

1.2 billion people believe in Islam. Does that make it "right"? How many people used to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Did that make it right? Or did widespread belief in Medieval Western religions make them right or true?

What I'm saying here is that our ideals--the ideals on which our Constitution was founded--are highly evolved. "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"--means a LOT, really. Totalitarian systems or Islamofascist systems or other backwards political systems DON'T have an equal claim to validity--elected governments are simply SUPERIOR in every measure of which progress and liberty and human rights are parts.

So when the "rest of the world" advances enough to dispose of dictatorships and institutes separation of church and state and creates freely elected governments, I'll give their opinions more credence. I listen to their opinions now--but my view is that they're wrong on most things. And as for the Europeans who oppose war with Saddam, I think most of them are stuck in an appeasement-type mentality, or simply getting on a "feel-good" bandwagon, or, as in the case of France Russia and Germany, have heavy economic reasons for opposing the war with Iraq--and are simply ignoring the fact that without action, things will likely get worse.

John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, points out that Saddam cannot be "contained" because at issue is not just his military force, but also the development and spread of biological, chemical and possibly nuclear WMD--and such proliferation will inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists. He's right, and it is essential that we delay this proliferation and reduce its scope as much as possible. Regime change in Iraq will be one step in that direction, at least.

[Glenn]

"What sort of 'charge' is that? Spying on foreigners who are in your country? If that's a crime, every country is in trouble. "

I was implying that inspections are worthless if he is spying on the inspectors and can sanitize a site before they arrive. Maybe he should be allowed to spy on them, but you'd have to agree that inspections are a pretty dumb idea if he is.

[Zeno]

I agree completely. As an example, a number of years ago, after some closely spaced airline accidents, a poll was conducted with the question: Is the FAA doing enough about airline safety. Aside from the fact that the timing and the question are loaded; the response was predictable – about 75% said No! (I don’t remember exact numbers but this will do for illustration).

Now ask yourself, how many people have the knowledge or expertise to even answer such a question (I know I do not). The FAA is a large and cumbersome technical agency with thousands of people and a host of rules and regulations about airlines and airplanes. There are probably only a handful of people in all the US that would have enough knowledge to give a reasonable answer to such a question.

One of those persons is a friend of mine who is an avionics engineer (20 years) with Boeing and dealt extensively with the FAA. He used to do FAA flight systems certification for some of Boeing’s commercial aircraft. I remember how much he laughed about the survey results when I mentioned them to him.

I think this an excellent example of the limitations, bias, and unreliability of polls. Many can be dismissed out of hand.


-Zeno

[adios]

"Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?"

About the same as demonstrating against a war that hasn't been undertaken. Ok those who oppose war as an option are protesting. But Bush has said that Saddam does have an option so his statement can be construed as if you choose an option that leads to war then if you commit war crimes.

BTW I would argue that basically a war has started. We're already attacking Iraqi targets and part of northern Iraq is being occupied by anti Saddam forces. We've got a lot military resources committed to the region and more on the way. Many are positioned on Iraq's border and many military aircraft are within striking distance.

[Zeno]

Your statement under(b) is false! In order to be a scientifically accurate measure of opinion a poll must be done on a random sample of people. Get your facts in order. Also, see my reply to Glenn.


-Zeno

[marbles]

"since we decided to be disingenuous, we essentially tied our own hands."

--Exactly. But then, by being disingenuous, we did get the poll numbers we wanted, and it was an extremely popular operation. Oh well, live and learn (maybe).

[andyfox]

"About the same as demonstrating against a war that hasn't been undertaken."

Not to my way of thinking, Tom. We have been threatening war for many months now, we have massed troops around Iraq. War is imminent.

Saddam has not threatened the United States with war. The United States has threatened Iraq. So if you're saying that choosing war as as option is itself a war crime, then it would be the United States who will be committing the crime.

If war has already started, then why is the President saying war can be avoided is Saddam complies with the U.N. resolutions and disarms? We've had skirmishes in the no fly zone before. We've had a lot of military resources committed to a lot of places for many years, one might just as well say we have been in a continuous war since 1948.

[IrishHand]

My facts are perfectly in order, but thanks for coming out. All polls suffer from a number of biases, with many of those revolving around the sample polled. The reality is that the most efficient method of polling is the telephone - and that restricts the sample to those with phones and listed numbers. While the overall effect isn't that big here at home where nearly everyone has a home phone, the same can't be said about many foreign countries. When you read a poll about the opinions of Egyptians or Turks, you're probably looking more at the opinions of the educated than the average citizen simply by virtue of the nation's communication infrastructure.

No matter what nation, poor, uneducated people are far less likely to play a part in polls. Science says that the poll should have a representative sample, reality means you're going to have some bias. I was just suggesing one way to interpret that bias.

[IrishHand]

Sure, they have a right to their opinion, but mightn't their opinion be quite uninformed, not to say biased or wrong?
An excellent argument against democracy and in favor of dictatorships.

As long as [the UN] represents so many garbage governments run by iron-fisted thugs who were never elected in the first place, I don't see why we should give too much credence to their opinions
The current administration wasn't elected, and that hasn't stopped you from giving "too much credence to their opinions."

[A] great many fanatic Islamists--Islamofascists if you wish--oppose us on nearly everything.
It seemed to me that their main problems were our (military) presence in the Holy Land and our support of Israel. However, it is apparent that you're acqainted with more "Islamofascists" than I am, so I shall defer to your superior knowledge.

Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves long for regime change.
Again, I will bow to your superior knowledge of the will of a foreign peoples. I will suggest though that typically when a nation's people "long for regime change", they have something called a revolution (we did one in this country a couple centuries ago). I haven't heard of too many peoples who thought that a war wherein many of them will be killed, and where the net result will likely be the replacement of one tyrant with another (only the 2nd one willing to help the US while he's helping himself), was the best way to change your head of state. I'm sure you're right though...I'm sure there are zillions of Iraquis praying for the day when the US cruise missiles rain down upon them.

elected governments are simply SUPERIOR in every measure of which progress and liberty and human rights are parts
That's ridiculous. There are many positive aspects of nearly every governmental model - women in Soviet Russia enjoyed a vastly superior level of equality at home and in the workplace than did those in this country for decades (we're still trying to close that gap, as evidenced by the continuing disparity in male/female pay scales. I could list a pile of examples, but let's be honest - you're as wedded to your ideas on this matter as an Islamic fundamentalist is to his. You believe that US democracy is the cure for all that ails the world, while anything related to Muslims is backwards, counterproductive and wrong. I prefer to think that people are all basically the same, regardless of who you pray to at night or who you pay your taxes to.

[Zeno]

A competent polling organization would take into account the lack of telephones or other ways of communication and do street or house polls or other means to get a statistically random sample. But your point is valid that polls may be skewed. Which I agree with. What or how the bias comes about is probably a question for a professional pollster. But I'll add that polls are probably more bias just in the way questions are asked or phrased, the timing of questions, etc. Opinion polls can have a varying degree of bias, and I think that is a reasonable statement that most would agree to.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

The opinions of the majority of the people of the world arent part of our democracy in the US--my saying they are uninformed isn't an argument against democracy because we're talking about opinions not votes.

The current administration was elected--I suggest you read up on what the electoral college is, and why poplular vote doesn't determine the President.

There ARE millions of Iraqis hoping for deliverance from Saddam.

If you can't discern that democracies are better than totalitarian systems, I can't argue with you because it would be pointless to try.

Maybe someday you will realize that some ways ARE better than others. In fact it's IDIOTIC to think otherwise--the chances of various ways being equally good is virtually nil--think about it mathematically.

People may be born with the similar hearts and minds, but what they develop into later can be quite different. Long-term indoctrination in fallacious ideas can be quite convincing to many. Just because twenty people believe 20 different things doesn't mean they are all right--probably only one is right, if any are right at all--the myth of equality is just that. Equality of rights as an ideal= a good thing. However equality of ideas=false.

I believe in giving everyone a chance on the personal level. That doesn't mean, however, that some belief systems aren't vastly inferior to others. A simplified and obvious example would be Copernican theory versus Galilean theory. Both sides might have believed they were right with equal fervor. But that doesn't mean the correct belief cannot be determined, or that Galileo didn't know the Church was stupid.

[nicky g]

"But Bush has said that Saddam does have an option so his statement can be construed as if you choose an option that leads to war then if you commit war crimes."

I don't quite follow what you're saying here; if it's that, by being invaded, Saddam has committed a war crime, that's absurd.

My understanding is that the war crimes he would be charged with would relate to the Iran war and the genocidal attacks on the Kurds. Which would be a good thing. A shame that no US or allied trops will join him in the dock for the war crimes they've committed by massacring a retreating army at Basra (something they gave assurances they would never do), deliberately starving the population of Iraq (illegal under the Geneva convention), helping Saddam put down the Shia rebellions after the Gulf war, deliberately prolonging the Iran/Iraq war and so forth. Ho hum.

[adios]

Actually I'm fairly certain that Bush wasn't referring to previous war crimes in that statement.

nicky, invasion == Bush, forcefully comply with UN resolution.

So Bush speak is:

if you choose to defy the UN resolution to disarm, are forcefully made to comply with the UN resolution to disarm and you wage war against those legitimate efforts to make you comply; if you, Saddam, commit war crimes as result of your waging war against those legitimate efforts ...

How did I do with interpreting Bush speak?

[nicky g]

Heh, pretty good, it's a tough job.

Well clearly if Saddam does commit war crimes in the forthcoming war, then he'll have committed war crimes. But if "forcing invasion" is all they can come up with, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, that isn't a war crime under any international treaty. Resisting an invasion, whether legitimate or not, may be illegal in this case under UN law but it isn't a "war crime." Starting a war, going to war etc isn't a war crime; disobeying certain rules of engagement and poor treatment of the enemy are war crimes.

[adios]

"disobeying certain rules of engagement and poor treatment of the enemy are war crimes."

Like civilian shields of military targets.

[nicky g]

Indeed.

[IrishHand]

I love how you completely tone down your positions when challenged to make them more defensible.

M argument #1 (verbatim, since you don't like my paraphrasing): elected governments are simply SUPERIOR in every measure of which progress and liberty and human rights are parts

My reply was that they weren't better in every measure - I believe there are valuable things to be learned from every governmental model in both theory and practice.

Your apparent restatement of your argument: If you can't discern that democracies are better than totalitarian systems, I can't argue with you because it would be pointless to try.

I'll take that as a tacit acknowledgement that democracies aren't better in every way. I agree 100%, as I'm sure most people on earth would, that a form of democracy is certainly better than a form of totalitarianism in the general sense. I just believe it's valuable to draw from the best aspects of every form of government in working towards some mythical "ideal" government. I don't want some utopia tomorrow, I'd just like to see improvement today (and tomorrow, and the next day, etc).

I also agree with you that there are surely large portions of the Iraqi population that would enjoy a regime change. I tend to suspect, though, that they're far less enthusiastic about the US invading them as a means to achieve this than you are. US soldiers certainly weren't hailed as "liberators" in the first Gulf War, I'm not sure what leads you to believe that's changed.

I'm going to ignore your little diatribe about the virtues of being "right" as opposed to everyone else who's wrong. My life has never been set up in terms of right and wrong - I'm more concerned with happy vs. unhappy. If millions of people want to believe in some God, and millions of others want to believe in another, and still millions believe in none at all, that's all fine with me. Is one group right? I'm sure they are. Does it make the slightest difference in my lifetime? Not that I'm aware of. We'll all learn the answer to that particular question eventually.

[MMMMMM]

Fine...I shouldn't have used the word "every"-I should have said "most every"--so that's what you were taking exception to? OK so I was a bit imprecise--my point is that most every measure of freedom and human rights are better under elected governments rather than under totalitarian systems.

Of course US soldiers weren't hailed as "liberators"-- because we left Saddam in power--the Iraqi people didn't get liberated--duh;-)

Right or wrong beliefs about God are quite different than right or wrong beliefs about science--and different still than right or wrong beliefs about efficient/non-efficient economic systems, or about political systems which support or deny human rights, etc. My point is that certain differences in beliefs don't affect much outwardly, but others do. Beliefs that wed religion to government stifle progress, competitiveness, innovation and freedom of thought and speech. If a government wants to force everyone to pray 5 times a day, you'd better think twice before you assume it's as good a system as any other.

[John Ho]

France? What about Russia and China?

Plus most of the nations in the world. When you start a war which most nations oppose you better have a real good reason for it. I don't think we have it.

[John Ho]

So countries can just start unilaterally attack other countries?

The reason you find UN approval ridiculous is because we are the most powerful country in the world and are used to having our way. But an invasion without UN approval is going to set a terrible precedent.

I would go so far as to say if we invade Iraq without UN approval we will likely have a multination war (possibly a third world war) within the next 15-20 years. This will be even more likely once we are close to implementing our missile defense shield and if Bush is reelected and possibly moves towards another country next (North Korea).

[John Ho]

Don't kid yourself. This country is a hegemony. As long as American culture is based so much on materialism the powerful will manipulate the system to keep themselves wealthy.

But most people don't notice it and aren't unhappy is because we are as a whole very well off. But go talk to the people working 2-3 jobs, working long hours, and barely getting by while their CEO makes 100 times what he makes that this democracy is looking out for everybody.

[John Ho]

You're being naive if you think we are fighting this war to free the Iraqi people. That is ridiculous. If this were true we would invade Cuba, China, and North Korea among others.

Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people. And it certainly does not make their opposition to a war any less valid. In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy? It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens.

[IrishHand]

Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people.
Exactly.

In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy? It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed.
Exactly.

[MMMMMM]

"You're being naive if you think we are fighting this war to free the Iraqi people. That is ridiculous. If this were true we would invade Cuba, China, and North Korea among others."

I don't think that's why we're fighting this war. But I do think it's a damn good reason, along with some other reasons.

"Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people. And it certainly does not make their opposition to a war any less valid."

I think the opinions of non-elected totalitarian despots are, and should be considered, less valid, compared to the opinions of freely elected leaders.

"In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy?

We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy, and war is not something which is constitutionally subject to the popular vote.

"It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens."

Guess so.

[MMMMMM]

"But most people don't notice it and aren't unhappy is because we are as a whole very well off."

Great! If most people are pretty well off, should they be unhappy because someone else is even better off?

"But go talk to the people working 2-3 jobs, working long hours, and barely getting by while their CEO makes 100 times what he makes that this democracy is looking out for everybody."

Our system isn't supposed to "look out for" everybody. It's supposed to safeguard our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[adios]

" It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens. "

As M pointed out we don't have national referendums on issues. However, there is War Powers Act that many claim unconstitutionally limits the power given to the president by Article II of the US Constitution. The point being that Bush has complied with the War Powers Act and has gotten Congressional approval. So in my mind it's not an entirely willful decision of one man.

[IrishHand]

I think the opinions of non-elected totalitarian despots are, and should be considered, less valid, compared to the opinions of freely elected leaders.

Why? Are they less intelligent? Less informed? Explain to me how the method of their ascendancy to power has anything to do with the "validity" of their opinions.

[IrishHand]

He's not talking about what's "constitutional" - he's talking about what's right for a democracy to do (or what's right for the leaders of a democracy to do). It's a philosophical/moral position, not a legal one.

[Chris Alger]

"Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?"

This is truly one of the more insane comments coming from the White House. If the US acts unilaterally without express Security Council authorization, how can Iraq not have a right to defend itself from foreign invasion? Further, if the US acts unilaterally, isn't this a war crime under Article 51 of the UN Charter? I think the legal consensus is that the US and the UK are gulty of war crimes already for the 10-year bombing campaign against Iraq. If these points seems clear after the war arrives, then shouldn't someone form a Committee to Try President Bush for War Crimes and If He's Found Guilty to Hang Him?

I'm only partly kidding. The unprecedented amount of dissent over this not-quite-a-war is both heartening and a little scary if it doesn't prevent anything. I don't know what you remember about 1971 (I was 14), when after 4 years of a full-swing antiwar movement while the war seemed to be getting worse, it seemed like the country was coming apart at the seams. It's where we could be a year from now.

[John Ho]

Well if you want to get into specifics only Congress has the power to authorize a war. And Bush is not seeking their declaration of war before proceeding. IMO the resolution they passed does not cut it.

Anyways, you are spliting hairs. On the one hand you say totalitarian regimes are less legit than democracies (true) but on the other hand you say Bush doesn't need popular support for a war because we are a Republic. Sorry but your logic on this issue is terrible.

[AceHigh]

" we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam "

Bush the first, had the final call on the decision along with a lot of his staff and Schwarzkopf and Powell. So, don't blame that on the UN.

Most of the current members of Bush foreign policy team were against taking out Saddam at the time. Powell, was very much against it. Rumsfield, wrote an internal memo asking how many Americans lives did he think Saddam was worth? His answer was "not very many".

[MMMMMM]

I think it's more than spitting hairs.

First of all, the American public is rather divided on the issue, with maybe a third willing to switch sides based on whether we get U.N. approval or not. Second, Congress did in fact give Bush certain powers, and many Congressmen support the possible war. So neither is US public opinion nor Congessional opinion completely opposed to the war--there is a significant measure of support, although there is a significant measure of opposition as well. As an indication of just how much "fence-sitting" there might be, I saw a poll yesterday I believe, which showed something like 71% of the U.S. public in favor of war if Iraq refuses to destroy the al Samoud missiles, but only 37% of the US public in favor of war if Iraq does destroy them. So a large slice of public opinion regarding the possible war is far from being set in stone. Perhaps a better general poll than "do you favor or oppose" might be the following categories: strongly oppose, mildly oppose, undecided, strongly favor, mildly favor.

There are many reasons why our Republic is set up the way it is, and while I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I can think of a few. For one thing, it would be very unwieldy and cumbersome to have the public voting on critical, sometimes time-sensitive issues such as war--this might often simply be impractical. Also, some of our Congressmen do receive intelligence briefings and information which should not be released to the general public for security reasons. In electing the best officials that we can, we do repose some trust in them to make certain decisions.

[Jimbo]

"Well if you want to get into specifics only Congress has the power to authorize a war. And Bush is not seeking their declaration of war before proceeding. IMO the resolution they passed does not cut it." Fortunately your opinion has no relevance to this decision. It seems the US Attorney General as well as the Congress that passed this resolution have a different opinion.

[MMMMMM]

I'm actually a little leery of any laws which circumvent the Constitution. However as Tom Haley pointed out, in this instance it does show Congressional support, so Bush isn't acting alone or as a dictator--even if the law itself may be debatable--and even if IrishHand can't tell the difference.

[adios]

Many argue that the War Powers act actually unconstitutionality limits the power of the President as Commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution. The War Powers act seems to be a way that Congress gets a voice in military campaigns such as Desert Strom where for various reasons a declaration of War is not deemed necessary. When it was passed, Nixon vetoed the law but his veto was overridden. I'm fairly certain that Congress (at least certain key members) has been privy to a lot of classified information regarding the WMD's that Iraq has. Sharing such classified information with the UN would effectively make it unclassified. You might as well publish it in the New York Times and Washington Post then give all the news networks a briefing.

[John Ho]

True, but certainly we as citizens can set a limit as to how much we want to trust our elected officials to make decisions on our behalf.

I think going to war is something they should not do without popular support regardless of what intelligence briefings they get. If that is so crucial they should make those reports public. If there's ever a time to release secret info this is it. I will not just trust my government to send people my age to death because they say it's necessary.

Please also note that Germany and France oppose the war for now and they are democracies. Also, the vast majority of the English do not support the war unless there is UN approval. Despite this fact they are rushing to support a war. I would not turn approval of this war into a democracy vs. totalitarian conflict.

[John Ho]

The US attorney general is hardly impartial in this. If Congress is so behind this action why not go ahead with a declaration of war like we did in WWII?

Basically what happened is the anti war folks in Congress got outmaneuvered. They were convinced the resolution authorizing force was needed as leverage in the UN and against Iraq. Now Bush will go ahead and use that resolution to start a war nobody Congress has not voted on.

By the way your shot about my opinion not having relevance was lame. If you don't care about people's opinions you can stay off these discussion boards and read a newspaper. Or better yet a right wing rag that tells you what you should be thinking so you won't have to bother ever questioning anything you believe.

[Jimbo]

John I agree with your right to express your opinion whether it is relevant or in error. You should be pleased you have this right rather than infringing on my right to both disagree with you and to point out where I believe you are incorrect. It is ironic that you think I should not question you yet not believe empirical impartial information.

[IrishHand]

There's a difference between questioning someone and being insulting. "You're wrong" or "I don't believe what you say" are worlds apart from "you're irrelevant." Nice try though.