devils advocate

Remember, one part spawn of Satan, three parts egg nog...

September 11th hit real close to home for me. I was only 20 miles away from the pentagon when all the [censored] hit the fan, the guy has had 12 frickin years to get his [censored] together

Which guy? The guy behind the September 11th attacks, or the guy in Iraq? Invading sovereign country X because a citizen of country Y is suspected of organising a terrorist attack doesn't sound to me like a good way of causing lasting peace for anyone concerned, and if you believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden must be co-conspirators just because both of them independently happening to hate the United States would be too much of a coincidence, you need to get out more .

Why is the US the badguy in this scenario?

Because they are contemplating starting a war even if they do not receive UN Security Council approval. The whole reason for the existence of the UN is to try and prevent nations starting wars without what might be called "the approval of humankind". Humankind, of course, is a pretty wishy-washy notion -- but currently the nearest thing to a planetary democracy we have, is the security council of the United Nations. When President Bush says that whether the UN approve his war or not is "their last chance for relevance", it's pretty clear he's not concerned about being regarded as the global badguy.

Are we supposed to sit here and let another bunch of dicks kill us?

Do you believe that using military force to install a puppet government in Iraq will reduce the number of dicks wanting to kill you?

Peter

and if you believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden must be co-conspirators just because both of them independently happening to hate the United States would be too much of a coincidence, you need to get out more .

Did ya read the second link? Intelligence kinda proves that Iraq and Al Queda have a little more in common then a frickin distaste for the US.... And as far as getting out more? Well my social life is just fine thank you.

Do you believe that using military force to install a puppet government in Iraq will reduce the number of dicks wanting to kill you?
Seems to be working great in Afghanistan

As far as UN resolution, I think it'd be great to have support but not necessary...

Intelligence kinda proves that Iraq and Al Queda have a little more in common then a frickin distaste for the US...

Honestly, I don't believe anything the Bush administration tells me. His obvious equivocation about domestic policy, combined with the policy itself makes me trust him about as far as I can throw him.

I'd be more inclined, actually, to say that bin Laden might be holed up some Kurds in nothern Iraq, as they share more of the same dogma, and Hussein hates the Kurds.

Did ya read the second link?

I did. And I don't trust Bush to tell the truth. I just don't believe him. Unless he (or someone I consider unbiased) actually presents some evidence of these meetings, then I'll continue to disbelieve him.

And as far as getting out more? Well my social life is just fine thank you.

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a personal attack, hence the smiley... I just meant it as an oblique way of saying that anyone who believed that relatively few people in the middle-east dislike the US, would need to "get out of" the US more and hear more of the world's opinions. No offence intended...

Peter

I didn't take offense... sorry if I was snippy

I don't like Bush... I think he's an idiot, but I don't disagree totally with what he's planning for Iraq, and as far as trusting what Bush says... I don't... But when it comes to things like intelligence, especially stuff that detailed they have to have something to go on there. I don't believe they make stuff like that up outta the thin air. Granted I realize it's been done before but I look at a guy like Saddam and I honestly don't think they have to do much looking to get dirt on him. He's not a nice guy. C'mon guys, why does everyone in Iraq that gets interviewed have to wear a wire tap? Everyone heard the intercepted transmissions in Iraq... we can argue the whole should we bomb iraq or not. But it's kind of a no brainer that the guy is covering things up.

But it's kind of a no brainer that the guy is covering things up.

I think even the dissenting members of the U.N. council know he's covering things up, and that he has the weapons in question -- they just don't want to join us in war yet. I would hope that they're not planning on just letting Saddam string this process out forever, though. I am not in favor of war at this very minute, but it must at least be known that there is a finite deadline for action, and he must know the consequences of not complying with resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved. That resolution states that "serious consequences" will occur if Iraq doesn't comply, and everyone knows that compliance hasn't happened. This can't be a constant "I dare you to step across this line" type of exchange -- there must be an end game.

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

The UN started off with little credibility. It's first two tasks were to help peace in the Middle Easy between the newly-formed Israel and everyone else and to help peace between India and Pakistan. We can see how well those worked out.

At the same time, it's better for something to be there than nothing, but it's well down the path of the League of Nations.

Well, as a country theres poking fun at ourselves, and then theres poking holes in ourselves.
And right now our country appears to be full of holes.

Agreed.

council know he's covering things up, and that he has the weapons in question

When is it ok, then, for another country to maintain weapons of mass destruction (I hate that media coined term)? We (the US) have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone, and we're not too concerned about disarming ourselves. We're no too worried about disarming lots of other countries, either. Is it because of the regime associated with the weapons? If so, then if Bush's supposed "regime change" for Iraq goes through - are we still going to be concerned with disarmament? Also, I'm not the biggest History buff, but I think it's fairly safe to say that on the issue of regime changes over the last 100 years, the US is pretty much batting 0. So, where's the evidence that this regime change is finally going to work? I can't say if I'm for or against the war - all I can say is that I'm very confused about it.

- trs

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

Also agreed. That is one of the few arguments FOR the war that I can say I'm in complete agreement with.

All things being equal, I believe in the War Games philosophy that "the only winning move is not to play." But, now that the cat is out of the bag, and nuclear weapons exist, I realize that the world will never completely disarm. With that knowledge, I think it's important to control who's got the weapons, and it's in the world's best interest to monitor who has them.

So I think it's okay for the U.S. and certain other nations to have these weapons because we've earned the right to have them, through our judicious "last resort" use of them. We don't use chemical or biological weapons, and have used nuclear weapons twice, when it was the last option. Saddam has routinely used chemical and biological weapons, and there's no telling what he would do if he got his hands on a nuke. I think the world understands that the U.S. isn't going to be dropping nukes on anyone anytime soon.

As for questionable countries like China and North Korea, diplomatic solutions are underway to control their nuclear weapons programs. In Iraq's case, diplomatic avenues are a dead end.

Agreed, you also have to wonder what 12 years of playing games like this does for the UN's credibility as a peacekeeper.

12 years of there not being a war, you mean? Sounds like good peacekeeping to me. Long may it continue.

Peter

As for questionable countries like China and North Korea, diplomatic solutions are underway to control their nuclear weapons programs. In Iraq's case, diplomatic avenues are a dead end.

Ultimately, I think you're right about this - assuming everything we've been told through the media and other sources is true about Saddam. I certainly hope we continue to pursue things diplomatically with N. Korea and China, because I'd be much more concerned about a war with them than I would be about a war with Iraq at this point.

We... have used nuclear weapons twice, when it was the last option.

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

- trs

12 years of there not being a war, you mean?

So if I had a rash that started on my arm then I let it go for 12 years without seeing a doctor I could say "hey I haven't been to the doctor in 12 years" but I'm guessing at some point I'd be a huge mess and either die or scratch all the flesh off of my body. But if I'd gone to the doctor and had it cleared up when it started.....

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

Difficult one. Yet a third view is that the US used a nuclear weapon once when it was the last option, and then again a few days later rather gratuitously. But I'm not sure which I agree with: it's fairly clear that the two bombs killed fewer Japanese people, let alone fewer people altogether, than would have died in a land invasion of Japan -- but, without knowing what the Emperor himself thought, it's impossible to know whether one bomb would have caused the surrender just as effectively. Another rumour is that the generals wanted to fight on even after the second bomb, and that the Emperor rather surprised them by surrendering. At this distance in time it's impossible to know for sure.

Peter

I think there are a lot of people out there that would disagree with the "last option" part of that statement - including the fair majority of the scientists actually involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

I did an extensive report on the Manhattan Project in college, and I came to an opposite conclusion. There was some apprehension, some regret, and some dissention amongst the scientists, but from my research, it looked like when the final decision was made, most of those involved realized the need for the action that was taken.

I completely agree.
You really should get that rash checked out.

So if I had a rash that started on my arm then I let it go for 12 years without seeing a doctor I could say "hey I haven't been to the doctor in 12 years" but I'm guessing at some point I'd be a huge mess and either die or scratch all the flesh off of my body. But if I'd gone to the doctor and had it cleared up when it started...

It depends how much you trust your doctor. If your doctor has in the past treated these problems by slashing the arm off live on CNN in the cheery supposition that some sort of well-functioning arm will grow back without any form of outside help, and if he further appears to believe that even if it doesn't, hey, it's not his arm anyway, then frankly I'd keep the rash...

Peter

Yeah it's really starting to effect my dating life.

then frankly I'd keep the rash...

I'd seek out a better doctor, myself.

- trs

I think the world understands that the U.S. isn't going to be dropping nukes on anyone anytime soon.

Since the administration hasn't given any reassurances on that, and have in fact, when asked, stated that *all* military options including nuclear options are available in any war in Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised to hear otherwise.

One thing that concerns me is the fact that the President is acting as a Dictator. He is not allowed to declare war. It takes an Act of Congress to do so.

How can anyone expect to believe in democracy and fairness when the self-stating leader of democracy and fairness isn't following it's own rules.

When you have a sizable portion of your population peacefully protesting against a war, and the President on live television likens them to a anti-capitalist group known to act violently and illegally, in effect using such an analogy to discount their protests, you have a major problem.

When you have a Congress that is considering withdrawing funding from the military because it is the only way that they can see to try and stop the President waging an un-sanctioned war, and the President still doesn't care, you have a major problem.

When you have an economy that has been in freefall ever since the President took office, and he doesn't appear to care, you have a major problem.

When he then, despite a looming half trillion dollar deficit, elects to boost military spending by $40B a year, and then gets his friend Donald to ask for another $10B to fight the War on Terror, you have a problem.

Oh, and by the way, that little unsanctioned 'Showdown with Saddam' thing we're going to do...that'll be another $100B. We'll just go ahead and spend it, and send you the bill later.

Oh, and we'll cut taxes while we're at it.

The President has only just gotten his 2002 budget approved. It's not exactly worth the effort and expense of preparing and approving when you're going to just spend the cash anyway. Why bother with the 2003 budget? Whatever money he wants to spend will be long spent by the time that gets rubber stamped.

Houston, we have a problem.

I saw a news story a week or so back. At some college girls' basketball game - on of the players turned her back on the US flag during the Pledge of Allegiance as an act of protest. She was booed by many of the spectators, who later accused her of being unpatriotic, both for her actions that night, and her stance on war.

Personally I found her action to be completely misguided, and in that sense unpatriotic. I say this because she has obviously decided that the flag represents the current administration and it's actions, and not The People.
I find this to be a sad reflection on the state of the US today. Too many people feel disenfranchised from the decision making processes, and by association, from the democracy, liberty and justice that the flag represents.

[Edit - A couple of grammatical clarifications.]

- the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me.

Actually it should be encouraging. Freedom of speech is one of the principles on which this country was founded.

But unfortunatly freedom of speech is being put on the back burner. Wearing a peace t-shirt is aparently a crime now.

the fact that so many of us can speak so disparagingly about this country is frightening to me.

Actually it should be encouraging. Freedom of speech is one of the principles on which this country was founded.

I think what he meant was that it's frightening that there's so much material that can be so widely spoken about disparagingly, not the fact that people are doing so. That's certainly my opinion.

Ah, I misunderstood the word "can", my mistake.

I saw a news story a week or so back. At some college girls' basketball game - on of the players turned her back on the US flag during the Pledge of Allegiance as an act of protest.

I saw the same story, and I found the crowd's reaction to be a sad reflection on the state of the US today. There's a world of difference between a patriotic position that says "I pledge allegiance to the United States, whatever it may choose to do", and a patriotic position that says "I support the principles of liberty, equality, and justice, and insofar as the United States does too, I'm right behind it, but otherwise I'm not".

Certainly to me as an outsider, flag-olatry looks more like the first kind of patriotism than the second kind. But I'm prepare to believe that US citizens view the whole flag thing differently. For instance, I can't imagine anyone anywhere on the political spectrum in Britain advocating a law against burning Union Jacks. (Er, except maybe Ian Paisley.)

Peter

As someone pointed out in an article I recently read, the US and the Phillippines, copying the US, are the only two countries in the word that have a flag pledge. I think the idolatry that accompanies the flag to be a little disturbing, too. I think that people forget what the words mean, that it's using the flag as a symbol, not an icon.

I always like to point out, though, that the proper way to dispose of a worn US flag is to burn it.

I don’t think the crowd’s reaction was out of line. The statement the girl was making is “The United States sucks” loudly and clearly. I’m sure this offended many of the people in the crowd for several reasons. It isn’t illegal, however, to offend someone (not yet anyway), nor is it necessarily unethical, depending on the circumstances. Still, it is not unethical for the crowd to by hurt by someone putting something down something that is very close to its heart.

As far as flag worship goes, I’ve never considered the flag to be an object of devotion but a symbol people rally behind. It gives physical form to an idea, but that’s as far as it goes. It’s one thing to be offended by a person’s public statement; it’s another to restrict a person’s freedom over an object.

that the proper way to dispose of a worn US flag is to burn it

Yeah, rather odd, isn't it? Although - officially a flag is supposed to be disposed of in some sort of ceremony by a "Patriotic Organization" such as the Boy Scouts of America, or The American Legion. But as long as some sort of "patriotic" song is sung while the flag is burning I suppose the Government shouldn't care who burns it.