If you support war with Iraq, how much is due to patriotism?

[Tesserat]

I was recently talking to an american friend, who told me that although he hated the idea of war, he would support the government 100% if it started a war with Iraq, because it was his "duty"

I asked if it wasn't more his duty to protest for what he believes in, since he lives in a free country. I didn't get a clear reply.

But I started wondering if anyone else felt the same way. If you support the war with Iraq, is any part of that due to patriotism?

[aerocontrols]

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned war-monger. I support the removal of murderous dictators, even by force, even when my government does not.

Aero: on the record. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=226116&highlight=Africa#post226116)

[Badger]

I guess I'm with Aero.

I would have preferred a single sniper bullet solution to the human rights abuses in Iraq (and advocate same in many other places).

I think the concepts of democracy and individual freedoms should be promoted throughout the world.

[Baggle]

Sorry if I sound like everybody else, but I agree with them. I support Bush on very little, and I probably will not vote for him in the next election unless the democratic candidates suck, but this is one thing that I agree with him on. I love my country, but I am not blindly loyal to its leaders. I made the decision about this just as skeptically as I made the decision on any other issue.

-Baggle

[Doctor X]

If I felt this was something that did not need to be done, I would join the protestors . . . okay, I might just kick one of the "Free Mumia" idiots. . . .

--J.D.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Doctor X
If I felt this was something that did not need to be done, I would join the protestors . . . okay, I might just kick one of the "Free Mumia" idiots. . . .

--J.D.

...you slay me! ;)

You are VERY consistant wit da witty reparte.

Oh damn! - spoke French - meant "quips".

Barkhorn.

[Doctor X]

You do me too much honor, sir.

--J.D.

[Tesserat]

I'm glad to see that the 0% option has the most votes (replies?). I, too, would favour assasination to eliminate Saddam. It might be hard to accomplish except as a suicide mission, though.

[Baggle]

Wasn't assassination of leaders without declaration of war declared illegal with the Geneva Convention? I really am not sure...

-Baggle

[Richard G]

The whole thing can be made into a very simple, easy to understand example.

Criminals, ie murders, rapist, etc., are apprehended, prosecuted, and punished in most civilized societies. A leader of a state or nation is not exempt from these basic rules of human decency. The only thing that allows them to get away with it is disarming their own people, and the apathy of other nations, who lack conviction, and intesinal fortitude to bring these criminals to justice.

Its not about patriotism. Its about doing the right thing.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Baggle
I support Bush on very little, and I probably will not vote for him in the next election unless the democratic candidates suck, but this is one thing that I agree with him on.

I support Bush on quite a bit, and I don't think that indicates patriotism one way or another. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply the other, but I think it's important to make the distinction.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Doctor X
If I felt this was something that did not need to be done, I would join the protestors . . . okay, I might just kick one of the "Free Mumia" idiots. . . .

--J.D. As I strolled through the campus of UCLA (a client) I saw one of those "free mumia" flyers. It pissed my off.

The vision of you standing with the protestors waving a "no war for oil sign" and then kicking a Mumia suporter made my day.

Thanks Dr. X.

As to the question, I don't know, it's a good question. I think ideology and patriotism plays a part. However I have wanted Saddam removed since '91.

[shemp]

No one enjoys a good war more than me. A little gunplay gets the blood going in the morning.

But this isn't going to be a good war.

[shanek]

So, wait...there's people who want journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal released from prison (or at least from death row) for killing a police officer because the eyewitnesses recanted, new forensic and ballistic evidence clears him, and someone else (Arnold Beverly) confessed to the crime.

Why, exactly, are these people idiots?

[a_unique_person]

Elements in an unfair trial:

* The Judge, Albert Sabo, sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge in the US.

* The public defender didn't interview a single witness in preparation for the trial, and didn't have funds for defending a capital case.

* The prosecutor removed 11 qualified African Americans from the jury. He also argued for the death penalty because of Mumia's membership in the Black Panther Party, a practice later condemned as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

* The racial bias of Philadelphia's courts has resulted in 120 people on death row, all but 13 non-white.



Dr X, is it time to start trying a little skepticism in your views?

[Mike B.]

OH BOYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

Mumia...Here in Philadelphia it is a bit of a joke the way this story has been twisted and turned into a cause celeb.

Yes you will find pro-Mumia sites on the web. They have lots of "facts."

I don't want to get into a Mummia fight, so I will simply ask that if people would read the actual trial transcript against him that is online or visit opposing sites...

The so-called confession of Beverly is so ridiculous that Leonard Weinglass resigned as Mumia's attorney rather than try to use it.


So please for everyone who wants to pretend to be an expert on this matter, after reading a few Free Mumia sites, research a little further. I think you will find the evidence against him overwhelming...Read here about Beverly (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth17.html)

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Badger
I guess I'm with Aero.

I would have preferred a single sniper bullet solution to the human rights abuses in Iraq (and advocate same in many other places).

I think the concepts of democracy and individual freedoms should be promoted throughout the world.

For your "preferrence" to make any sense you have to assume that the assasination of dictators leads to freedom and democracy. I can't think of a single historical precedent which supports this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
So please for everyone who wants to pretend to be an expert on this matter, after reading a few Free Mumia sites, research a little further. I think you will find the evidence against him overwhelming...Read here about Beverly (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth17.html)

Thanks for the info, and I really don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, but all I've seen so far is duelling web pages. I don't see any cause for causing the Free Mumia people "idiots," and your website even confirms the Beveryl affadavit where he confesses that he was hired to kill Faulkner. The site's response to this is to call it "an absurd 'Twilight Zone' scenario." But apparently, the confession is real, and stranger things have happened.

But I'll read over the site you gave in more detail.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Thanks for the info, and I really don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, but all I've seen so far is duelling web pages. No! This is simply NOT the case. Read the entire site. The evidence is overwhelming. None of the "dueling" web pages use court transcripts. This is the only one that does. Why do you suppose that only this site relies on court transcripts?

I don't see any cause for calling the Free Mumia people "idiots," When you ignore truck loads of evidence and make death threats against Faulkner's widow out of spite and ignorance you are by definition an idiot. A F***ING idiot. I hope that is clear.

...and your website even confirms the Beveryl affadavit where he confesses that he was hired to kill Faulkner. Wow, a confession, let's see...how many people confessed to being the Hillside strangler? How many people confess to all sorts of crimes? Whenever there is a popular case there are false confessions.

The confession should be a nonstarter but...

There are an awful lot of problems with this confession. Including the fact that it was Mumia's gun and Mumia had the gun when the police arrived and none of the witnesses saw Beverly shoot the gun and there is a witness who saw Mumia shoot the gun.... It goes on and on but if you choose to accept this "confession" and toss out all of the other evidence then there is little I can do to persuade otherwise.

The site's response to this is to call it "an absurd 'Twilight Zone' scenario." But apparently, the confession is real, and stranger things have happened.

FALSE Come on shanek, you can do better than that. There are two responses. A brief rebuttal and a discussion and there is much more than just calling the confession a 'Twilight Zone' scenario.

BRIEF REBUTTAL
Of the four supposedly exculpatory eyewitnesses, three are not eyewitnesses at all -- they admit that they did not see the shooting, and did not see the shooting scene until well after the shooting was over. The other is an eyewitness for the prosecution , who has consistently said that Jamal was the killer. And this is all supported by court transcripts. Something you will not get at the other "dueling" websites. I wonder why?

Transcripts from 20/20 December 9, 1998 (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth17.html)

Mumia Trial and PCRA Transcripts (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth17.html)

But I'll read over the site you gave in more detail. Yes, please read the entire site. There really is no question as to Mumia's guilt.

Unless you believe in angels and fairies and then I suppose that there is a possibility that Mumia is innocent.

[Tesserat]

If this thread about how much of your support of an iraq war is due to patriotism deserves to die, let it. If you want to talk about Mumia, start a thread. There seems to be strong feelings on that subject, but please don't hijack.

[RandFan]

* The Judge, Albert Sabo, sentenced more people to death than any other sitting judge in the US.

* The public defender didn't interview a single witness in preparation for the trial, and didn't have funds for defending a capital case.

* The prosecutor removed 11 qualified African Americans from the jury. He also argued for the death penalty because of Mumia's membership in the Black Panther Party, a practice later condemned as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

* The racial bias of Philadelphia's courts has resulted in 120 people on death row, all but 13 non-white. Not one single argument as to the innocence of Mumia Abu Jamal. No testimony from the transcripts and no facts.

This information would have some value if it were corroborated with evidence as to the innocence of Mumia. But somehow you could not come up with that could you.

Its ok, none of the other "idiots" calling for the release of Mumia can. Just innuendo and propaganda.

The lack of facts in your post speaks volumes.

Hey, why not let everyone imprisoned in Philadelphia go?

Your bulleted points are fallacious as they pertain to the guilt or innocence of Mummia. You willfully disregard all of the facts of the case.

Yeah, that is skepticism; there is critical thought for you. Thanks for the object lesson as what NOT to do.

Dr X, is it time to start trying a little skepticism in your views? It's time for you to face up to the facts of the case. Read the site. Rebut the arguments and the facts.

Justice For Daniel Faulkner (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/index.html)

Or is it just easier to spout talking points and complaining about "problems with the system". That is the only thing you can do in this instance.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tesserat
If this thread about how much of your support of an iraq war is due to patriotism deserves to die, let it. If you want to talk about Mumia, start a thread. There seems to be strong feelings on that subject, but please don't hijack. You are right. Sorry, this one really hits a nerve with me.

[evildave]

Well, if we overthrow this dictator who has "Weapons of mass destruction", then why not all of the others?

North Korea has it "long overdue".

China still isn't "nice".

Pakistan has nukes, and they're extremely unstable. Of course, they want to nuke India, and not the U.S., so they're our PALS!

Lots of "little" countries have air forces and bombs and missiles and nuclear reactors and chemicals. Lots of "little" countries have long histories of human rights abuses and horrible tyrants in charge of them.

It will only be the utmost in hypocrisy when we go into Iraq, overthrow their dictator, parade some pictures of blackened and burned out junk in front of the cameras, install a NEW ruthless dictator who "likes us", and then leave... leaving all of the other petty dictators in the world alone.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, if we overthrow this dictator who has "Weapons of mass destruction", then why not all of the others?

North Korea has it "long overdue".

China still isn't "nice".

Pakistan has nukes, and they're extremely unstable. Of course, they want to nuke India, and not the U.S., so they're our PALS!

Lots of "little" countries have air forces and bombs and missiles and nuclear reactors and chemicals. Lots of "little" countries have long histories of human rights abuses and horrible tyrants in charge of them.

It will only be the utmost in hypocrisy when we go into Iraq, overthrow their dictator, parade some pictures of blackened and burned out junk in front of the cameras, install a NEW ruthless dictator who "likes us", and then leave... leaving all of the other petty dictators in the world alone.

I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) - an unelected leader, and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment.
Care to guess who??

[Tony]

Originally posted by rockyroad


I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) - an unelected leader, and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment.
Care to guess who??

Why dont you tell us, we dont live in your fantasy world.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Tony


Why dont you tell us, we dont live in your fantasy world.

Yes, you certainly have proved you have your own - no arguments here (and no wish to join I and the vast majority of the rest of the world are quick to state)

[Tesserat]

originally posed by Evil Dave
Well, if we overthrow this dictator who has "Weapons of mass destruction", then why not all of the others?


i kinda feel the same way. That's why I started the other poll about how many casulties are acceptable. If the states tried the same thing with North korea, the casulties would be far higher, and the war would be much less popular. I think part of the acceptance of the approaching war is due to the fact that it should be over real quick, (as wars go), and american deaths will hopefully be few.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My support for the war is entirely due to intelligence.

[Tony]

Originally posted by rockyroad


Yes, you certainly have proved you have your own - no arguments here (and no wish to join I and the vast majority of the rest of the world are quick to state)

I guess in your fantasy world, proper grammar has no meaning.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tesserat
originally posed by Evil Dave


i kinda feel the same way. That's why I started the other poll about how many casulties are acceptable. If the states tried the same thing with North korea, the casulties would be far higher, and the war would be much less popular. I think part of the acceptance of the approaching war is due to the fact that it should be over real quick, (as wars go), and american deaths will hopefully be few.


You're absolutly right. I would love to topple every brutal dictator in the world, but after the vietnam war, heavy casualties are generally unacceptable to americans. We have to pick the fights we can win (or win easily).

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Richard G
The whole thing can be made into a very simple, easy to understand example.

Criminals, ie murders, rapist, etc., are apprehended, prosecuted, and punished in most civilized societies. A leader of a state or nation is not exempt from these basic rules of human decency. The only thing that allows them to get away with it is disarming their own people, and the apathy of other nations, who lack conviction, and intesinal fortitude to bring these criminals to justice.

Its not about patriotism. Its about doing the right thing.
You have said it well. I agree!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rockyroad
I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) And you forgot that we were the first and the only nation to be the lone country to have WMD. Even so we only used them to end the war.

We could have used them to take over the world the way Hitler wanted and the way Stalin took over much of the world.

...- an unelected leader, Rhetorical and intellectually dishonest.

There was an election, more people voted for Bush than ever voted for Clinton. Ostensibly Bush received more of the vote in Florida than Gore did thus winning the electoral college. The difference in the number of votes between Gore and Bush were statistically insignificant. In other words the election was a tie.

Now you can argue that Bush didn't "win" the election but in truth, no one did. But to say that he wasn't "elected" suggests that there was no election process, no primary and that the people did not get to voice their opinion.

For more on the argument as to "did Bush win?"

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9520

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13618

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8194

...and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment. More rhetoric. Why is the decision to disarm Saddam by force irrational?


Saddam invaded Kuwait
The US along with the UN and a broad coalition of governments told him that he must leave
He refused so we ejected him by force
As a condition to the cease fire he agreed to UN demands including destroying his WMD
He did not do this
He broke every UN resolution
He has failed to fulfill his obligations of the cease fire.
He has been caught time and time again lying
Every single member of the security council voted to demand Saddam comply or face serious consequences.
No one has made the argument that Saddam has complied with UN resolutions


Now you can argue whether or not it is best to use military force at this time to enforce UN resolutions but the decision is based upon reason and rationality. You might not like the rational but you can't say that it is irrational .

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Richard G
The whole thing can be made into a very simple, easy to understand example.

Criminals, ie murders, rapist, etc., are apprehended, prosecuted, and punished in most civilized societies. A leader of a state or nation is not exempt from these basic rules of human decency. The only thing that allows them to get away with it is disarming their own people, and the apathy of other nations, who lack conviction, and intesinal fortitude to bring these criminals to justice.

Its not about patriotism. Its about doing the right thing.

Bingo!...

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan


We could have used them to take over the world the way Hitler wanted and the way Stalin took over much of the world.



The United States government could not have used her weapons to take over the world for the simple reason that it would not have washed with the American people. Not for one minute.

Britain was 80% of the way down the road to giving up her empire by this time - the main reason being opposition to such an archaic, imperialist notion as empire building from within Britain itself. The people in charge of the US would have known perfectly well that their own population would not have let them take over the entire world.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Richard G
The whole thing can be made into a very simple, easy to understand example.

Criminals, ie murders, rapist, etc., are apprehended, prosecuted, and punished in most civilized societies. A leader of a state or nation is not exempt from these basic rules of human decency. The only thing that allows them to get away with it is disarming their own people, and the apathy of other nations, who lack conviction, and intesinal fortitude to bring these criminals to justice.

Its not about patriotism. Its about doing the right thing.

This would be a fine principle to establish, but of course it has to be yielded with unwavering consistency.

If not it can be easily discredited as a self-serving opportunist ploy.

In other words we can take it as read that there will be US invasions of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Colombia following hard on the heels of the current campaign.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by originalgagster
In other words we can take it as read that there will be US invasions of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Colombia following hard on the heels of the current campaign.

You can take it as read that I will fight to change those regimes. (Saudi primarily, but not before Iran and North Korea)

You cannot take it as read that I will support invasion as the 'correct' method of changing any particular one of them, however. (Especially 'hard on the heels') Many African nations seem to me to be prime candidates for regime change, as a visit to my link above will demonstrate.

MattJ

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tesserat
I'm glad to see that the 0% option has the most votes (replies?). I, too, would favour assasination to eliminate Saddam. It might be hard to accomplish except as a suicide mission, though.

Assassination could still happen. With the end of the regime imminent a palace plot has a real chance of success.

[Doctor X]

What I get for spending a day "a the office."

Why, exactly, are these people idiots?

Because!!

Seriously:


Free Us from Mumia (http://www.mykeru.com/contact/free_mumia.htm)

Now back to the discussion. . . .

--J.D.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
The United States government could not have used her weapons to take over the world for the simple reason that it would not have washed with the American people. Not for one minute. Your point?

[evildave]

Originally posted by RandFan
And you forgot that we were the first and the only nation to be the lone country to have WMD. Even so we only used them to end the war.

We could have used them to take over the world the way Hitler wanted and the way Stalin took over much of the world.

Rhetorical and intellectually dishonest.

There was an election, more people voted for Bush than ever voted for Clinton. Ostensibly Bush received more of the vote in Florida than Gore did thus winning the electoral college. The difference in the number of votes between Gore and Bush were statistically insignificant. In other words the election was a tie.

Now you can argue that Bush didn't "win" the election but in truth, no one did. But to say that he wasn't "elected" suggests that there was no election process, no primary and that the people did not get to voice their opinion.

For more on the argument as to "did Bush win?"

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9520

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13618

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8194

More rhetoric. Why is the decision to disarm Saddam by force irrational?


Saddam invaded Kuwait
The US along with the UN and a broad coalition of governments told him that he must leave
He refused so we ejected him by force
As a condition to the cease fire he agreed to UN demands including destroying his WMD
He did not do this
He broke every UN resolution
He has failed to fulfill his obligations of the cease fire.
He has been caught time and time again lying
Every single member of the security council voted to demand Saddam comply or face serious consequences.
No one has made the argument that Saddam has complied with UN resolutions


Now you can argue whether or not it is best to use military force at this time to enforce UN resolutions but the decision is based upon reason and rationality. You might not like the rational but you can't say that it is irrational .

And how many treaties has North Korea broken?

China?

The USSR (which "dissolved" as far as some in the U.S. are concerned, thus making all former treaties "invalid")?

How about the good ol' U.S. of A.?

Have WE never broken a peace treaty?

Nothing about "as long as the wind blows, the grass grows, the river flows" before a little bout of well-practiced genocide?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave


And how many treaties has North Korea broken?

China?

The USSR (which "dissolved" as far as some in the U.S. are concerned, thus making all former treaties "invalid")?

How about the good ol' U.S. of A.?

Have WE never broken a peace treaty?

Nothing about "as long as the wind blows, the grass grows, the river flows" before a little bout of well-practiced genocide? Hi dave,

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are arguing that the U.S.A. is inconsistent.

This is not my point. I was responding to a post that said the war was irrational.

I asked a question,

Why is the decision to disarm Saddam by force irrational? My bullited points where to show that the war was not irrational.

But I will concede your point that the USA has broken 1 or 2 agreements in the past. Do you have any land to sell? I have some plastic beads.

[evildave]

Inconsistent? Yes.

That's a bit of a problem, isn't it?

Let everything cool off for a year or so, then look around and say "You know what? Iraq's been naughty!"

They've been "naughty" for 13 years!

Now ALL OF A SUDDEN, we notice and have to attack?

It was U.N. resolutions that Iraq has been breaking. Now we are basically saying "SCREW what the U.N. says! We're going to ATTACK because they're breaking U.N. resolutions!"

It's pure nonsense.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave
Inconsistent? Yes.

That's a bit of a problem, isn't it?

Let everything cool off for a year or so, then look around and say "You know what? Iraq's been naughty!"

They've been "naughty" for 13 years!

Now ALL OF A SUDDEN, we notice and have to attack? With all due respect dave, and I do respect you.

This is not accurate. Working with the UN we tried to disarm Iraq until world opinion waned and Saddam stopped cooperating completely.

We should have invaded then but we didn't. Instead we bombed Iraq, big deal. That was wrong but world opinion was not on our side and Bill Clinton did not feel it was the appropriate thing to do. Bombing Kosovo however was a different matter.

In any event it has been a serious problem for over a decade. We should not have let anything cool down.

It was U.N. resolutions that Iraq has been breaking.
Now we are basically saying "SCREW what the U.N. says! No, we are saying that if there is no threat of force (thanks France) then Iraq will not comply. We are saying that the U.N. was warned that they are becoming irrelevant and that we cannot allow the safety and security of the United States to be dictated by people who do not have our best interests at heart.

We're going to ATTACK because they're breaking U.N. resolutions!" U.N. resolutions that we sponsored because we tried to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the problem. When we realized that the U.N. was no longer able or willing to do its job we acted. The truth is the U.N. told us to go screw ourselves.

It's pure nonsense. I disagree but I respect your opinion.

[evildave]

We're making the U.N. "not irrelevant" by simply ignoring it, and all of its members when it suits us?

If we ignore the U.N.'s insistence NOT to have an ultimatum, and then we ignore the U.N.'s insistence NOT to attack, isn't the U.N. UTTERLY IRRELEVANT?

If a member nation can simply disregard the U.N. "just because", then they are utterly irrelevant.

We're backing up the U.N.'s relevance by making them utterly irrelevant.

As I said. Nonsense.

But I'll add, the U.N. never has been particularly relevant.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your point?

I should have thought that would be obvious. It seems you were trying to imply with the statement "We could have used them to take over the world the way Hitler wanted and the way Stalin took over much of the world." that your leaders and ruling elite had some kind of unique benevolence which was missing from the rulers of other countries round the world. My observation shows this is a mistaken assumption.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
...that your leaders and ruling elite had some kind of unique benevolence which was missing from the rulers of other countries round the world. I'm sorry, I am unable to find where I said this or even intimated it. Could you reference my quote where I say that the leaders and ruling elite had some kind of unique benevolence?

Edited to add,

I just read your original quote again in which you say "seem to imply".

Let me be clear. I did not mean to imply any such thing.

My only point was that we did not exploit the weapons to control the world. Whether that is a product of our leaders or our people is not important. We as a nation did not use our WOMD. We are not like Iraq or Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union or the Communists under Mao.

Now look at your two statements.

[list=1]
"I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) - an unelected leader, and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment."

"The United States government could not have used her weapons to take over the world for the simple reason that it would not have washed with the American people. Not for one minute."
[/list=1]

So, I will ask again, and your point is

[RandFan]

Originally posted by evildave
We're making the U.N. "not irrelevant" by simply ignoring it, and all of its members when it suits us? [ Again, I disagree with your characterization.

The United States views Iraq as a real threat. We worked with the UN to disarm Iraq. But after 12 years it is obvious that the UN does not have the willingness to finish what it started. So America is supposed to do what? Shrug their shoulders.

The security of the United States cannot be held hostage by a group that does not have our best interests at heart and is unwilling to enforce it's own rules.

If we ignore the U.N.'s insistence NOT to have an ultimatum,... I don't think you realize the significance of this statement. Perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement. If the UN insists on NOT having an ultimatum then that in and of itself makes it irrelevant (after 12 years of failing to disarm Saddam that is)

If a member nation can simply disregard the U.N. "just because", then they are utterly irrelevant. We didn't simply disregard the U.N. We worked for more than a decade with the U.N. We were successful in passing 1441. Then we found out that "serious consequences" had no meaning.

THIS is what makes the U.N. relevant.

We're backing up the U.N.'s relevance by making them utterly irrelevant.

As I said. Nonsense.

But I'll add, the U.N. never has been particularly relevant. Dave,

Thank you for your responses. I have said as much as I care to on this subject I will let you have the last word on this one.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan

My only point was that we did not exploit the weapons to control the world. Whether that is a product of our leaders or our people is not important. We as a nation did not use our WOMD. We are not like Iraq or Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union or the Communists under Mao.

Fair enough, but i think it is important to point out that although it may have been theoretically possible for the US to go empire building, in practice there were good political reasons which explain why it was impossible.

Originally posted by RandFan
[list=1]
"I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) - an unelected leader, and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment."

heh. Not my quote.

Originally posted by RandFan
So, I will ask again, and your point is

To show why it wasn't possible for the US to take over the world with their WOMD.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
heh. Not my quote. My apologies.

To show why it wasn't possible for the US to take over the world with their WOMD. I was responding to someone else who said "I do think you've forgotten one major country with huge stockpiles of WMD (as in - the biggest) - an unelected leader, and it appears more and more, an irrational will to reign destruction on whomever it decides is the demon of the moment."

I was trying to show this individual that his point was irrelevant because we would not use WOMD for sinister purposes.

I thought you were being inconsistent when in fact you were just buttressing my argument. For that I thank you.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by RandFan
Again, I disagree with your characterization.

The United States views Iraq as a real threat. We worked with the UN to disarm Iraq. But after 12 years it is obvious that the UN does not have the willingness to finish what it started. So America is supposed to do what? Shrug their shoulders.

The security of the United States cannot be held hostage by a group that does not have our best interests at heart and is unwilling to enforce it's own rules.



Whats the threat?

Personally I feel more threatened by North Korea. Followed by catching the light rail in the slums if I have to work late at night (read - crime). Then followed by the fear of losing my job and not being able to provide food, shelter, and medical care for my family.

Iraq isn't even on the list.

But, can you tell me two things? Why does "America" feel threatened by Iraq? Why do you feel threatened by Iraq?

Thanks,