"If you don't like it, leave"

[Cyrus]

"[Attacking people's loyalty to their country and insulting the president] are precisely the same thing. Both are an expression of opinion in a deliberately provocative manner."

While both expressions of opinion should indeed be allowed to be aired and heard as such, this does not mean that we should accept them as having somehow equal value in a debate! Accusing Americans of disloyalty because they disagree with or are disrespectful towards their President is not just a vile and shameful practice but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy. In other words, it's un-American, in the most profound sense.

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly understood this when it ruled that mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--even before the divisive words "under God" were inserted--was unconstitutional. "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson for the majority in 1943. This was, remember, at the height of World War II, when the war's outcome was very much in doubt.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."-- Edward R. Murrow

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

[Cyrus]

"[George W Bush is] Yale undergrad, Harvard B-school. I'm curious what you define as educated."

Umm, someone who actually learned something?

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

Perhaps I'm remembering the political spin about "iminent threat" or perhaps I was reading the subtext of nearly everything leading up to the passing of the resolution. As for the reasons in the resolution, you listed three:

1) Potential threat - might be what the resolution says, but that's not how it was sold. Regardless, "potential threat" is not, in my mind, justification to launch a war.

2) Material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions -- This one is very troubling to me. The administration thumbs its nose at the UN then justifies the war by defending the UN. The resolutions were not the United States' resolutions to enforce, they were the UN's. Texas doesn't enforce US treaties, just like the US shouldn't enforce UN treaties.

3) Harboring of Al Qaeda terrorists. The links of Iraq to Al Qauda are tenuous at best. I continue to demand more for this justification.


Notice that the resolution justifications that you mentioned don't claim that it was because of human rights violations (as the administration so strongly pushed just a few weeks ago prior to catching Sadam.) The main justification - the one that, if true, everyone in the country would agree to - was that Iraq was an iminent threat (even if the actual words "iminent threat" weren't used by the president). There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of the country would not have been in favor of the war if that leg of the three legged stool was missing.

[Utah]

I am very disappointed that your usual crazy rantings are not accompanied by your usual wit, as that wit was the only thing that gave your posts charm. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Just so I understand:
Calling your president a Bozo, insulting your countrymen as warmongers, liars, scumbags, baby killers, etc. is very good and helpful towards open discussion. However, calling those people hurling these insults unpatriotic crosses some sort of line? hm......

Please explain why calling someone unpatriotic is vile but calling someone a baby killer is good? While either one may be wrong in their assessment, they are both just free expression.

Of course, this logic might be lost on you since you can't even figure out what a lie is.

"but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy"

So, are you calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw the ability to call someone unpatriotic? My guess is that a little someone is sensitive to the phrase as they have been called unpatriotic many times.

[MMMMMM]

"not just a vile and shameful practice but also quite outside the proposition of American democracy."

Very good, Cyrus: you are getting the hang of writing like Ann Coulter now!

[MMMMMM]

"2) Material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions -- This one is very troubling to me. The administration thumbs its nose at the UN then justifies the war by defending the UN. The resolutions were not the United States' resolutions to enforce, they were the UN's. Texas doesn't enforce US treaties, just like the US shouldn't enforce UN treaties."

Recall however that the last resolution, 1441(?), specifically provided for "serious consequences" should Iraq fail to disclose fully its WMD documentation, etc. And everybody knew just what "serious consequences" in this case meant since the massive U.S. military buildup off Iraq was well under way. So France et al had inasmuch given permission for war should Iraq not comply (and this was known in diplomatic circles). Then France reneged on this understanding and demanded a further resolution and lobbied the world to oppose the war. Of course this is what France had been deceitfully planning to do all along...anything to delay.

Also, just as an adjacent point, the only means the U.N. has of enforcing anything is through the U.S. So, yes, for all practical purposes the U.S. is the enforcer of U.N. Resolutions, and IMO it's time we told the U.N. they are useless, and withdrew...to form a U.N. of Representative Democratic Republics. Get rid of the U.N. and replace it with the U.N.R.D.R. No totalitarian regimes need apply.

[andyfox]

This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put.

[andyfox]

I agree, for sure, on 1 and 4. I don't know enough about 2 and 3 to comment, but let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that I agree. On 5, it depends what you mean by "protect." If the evil is that people are gambling, I agree. If the evil is that many sights are stealing or rigged, then that is a different story.

Whie the "war " on drugs is bad policy, this doesn't mean the federal government should have no place in fighting such a war. Same thing with the Patiot Act: couldn't a better law be written to accomplish what the Patriot act purports to be trying to accomplish?

In other words, just because a particular law or enforcement policy is demonstrably, in that it doesn't accomplish what it was intended to accomplish (or even accomplishes the opposite) doesn't mean that too many laws make a society authoritarian. We have tons of laws but I don't think we're an authoritarian society. Too many of the wrong laws might make us so.

[adios]

"1) Potential threat - might be what the resolution says, but that's not how it was sold. "

Who was selling it and who was duped?

1) Are you claiming that Congress duped US citizens?

or

2) Are you claiming that Bush duped Congress?

Bush was authorized by Congress under the War Powers act to take action in Iraq. You seem to have a hard time acknowledging that simple fact. I suspect it's due to the realization that if you do, you have to find culpability with members of Congress on both sides of the isle (as well as Bush). When you admit this culpability you have to acknowledge that members of Congress who authorized the action did so based on their own fact finding or that they're complete stooges. I'm sure you'll come up with something about Bush duping US citizens but that seems to be a major cop out when trying to reconcile the resolution passed in Congress authorizing action in Iraq. Bush wanted the resoulution but if he doesn't get it, he doesn't take action in Iraq.

"Regardless, "potential threat" is not, in my mind, justification to launch a war."

77 Senators and 296 members of the House disagreed with you including prominent Democrats such as Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. George Bush disagrees with you and so does Bill Clinton. BTW I didn't read the words "potential threat" even one time in that resolution.

[MMMMMM]

"This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put."

Sounds a bit like Pennsylvania Dutch to me;-)