Don't you love war threads?

[jn.loudnotes]

Ok, one more take on the war, something I've been wondering lately since it seems like we're about to go to war for real.  Here are some facts, as far as I know:

1. Part of the reason for going to war is that Saddam Hussein has terrible weapons.
2. Some of those weapons can reach Israel and other countries in the area.
3. The US apparently believes Saddam might use those weapons.

Ok, so before going to war there's a chance he'll use them.  If we go to war, isn't that going to guarantee it?  If you were a madman with terrible weapons you wanted to use anyway, wouldn't launching them be your first action when under attack?  I haven't seen any discussion of this possibility anywhere.  Am I missing something?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

It sounds logical to me that he will use them if attacked.  It is like the quote, "It is better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt"  The US thinks "Why claim that Saddam has WMD when you can attack and remove all doubt"  Unfortunately that way of removing doubt is by seeing their use.

That is why I found the whole idea of Saddam disarming with the military right on the border so wrong.  The attack was going to come at some point because Bush wouldn't be satisfied no matter what Saddam did.  So, considering a war was definate, why would Saddam want to give up his weapons.  That would be like knowing you were about to get in a duel with another person but giving them your gun before hand.

Although I don't want to see any US soldiers killed, I think Saddam is free to use any means to fight the soldiers as he wants as part of war.  Using weapons agains civilians of course isn't acceptable, although I garentee more Iraqi civilians will be killed by the US than non-Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam.

Also, I wanted to add that even if Saddam attacks with mortors or something at this point, it wouldn't justify the war by saying he started it because for all intensive purposes, Bush has already declared war, even if it is not officially.  Add to that that the US has already been bombing various anti-aircraft instalations for a few weeks.

[tasty]

I'm not sure if this is common practice or not since I haven't really lived through a war before, but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda. Why do they do this? I was very dismayed to see it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

1. Part of the reason for going to war is that Saddam Hussein has terrible weapons.
2. Some of those weapons can reach Israel and other countries in the area.
3. The US apparently believes Saddam might use those weapons.

You need to modify #2.  Most of the WMD's in question could be easily smuggled into the USA to use against it's citizens.

Ok, so before going to war there's a chance he'll use them.  If we go to war, isn't that going to guarantee it?

Here's what I think you are missing.  Two things.

First, Both France and Russia have now stated publicly that if Iraq uses any WMD's, even on American troops, they will both jump in on the USA's side.  And that should make him think again.

Second, and more important.  Isn't it much better for him to use them on troops that are prepared for it, rather then give him the choice of targets?  Like civilians that aren't prepared for it?  By choosing the offensive, the USA is limiting his options in many ways (the bad ways you've been pointing out, this is one of the good ways).  Another aspect is that if he fires off one, it can be tracked back to where it came from.  The more he uses the weapons, the closer the USA will be to finding any stockpiles / production facilities.  

This is all based upon the same assumption you started with (and our government is telling us), which is that he has these stockpiles and production facilities.

Unfortunately that way of removing doubt is by seeing their use.

Better to find it with troops that are prepared for it, then with an outbreak in New York City, no?  Or Tel Aviv.  Or anywhere else they aren't prepared for it.

That would be like knowing you were about to get in a duel with another person but giving them your gun before hand.

No surprise, but I disagree with your analogy.  To think that it's a duel would imply Iraq has a chance.  You yourself have said they don't in the past.  I would say it's more like a cop with a shotgun pointed at a criminal.  The criminal can take the .38 special out of his belt, and lay it on the ground, or he can try to shoot the cop with it.  The criminal is in a no win situation.  So yes, expecting him to give it up is reasonable, but iffy.  

Although I don't want to see any US soldiers killed, I think Saddam is free to use any means to fight the soldiers as he wants as part of war.

This is me questioning your context, btw.  So you are saying that using WMD's is ok for Iraq if used against the USA?  Any means means anything to me.  So you are saying it's ok for him to use mustard gas, nukes, or anything else?  Even if their use has been outlawed?

And, if this is true, doesn't this conflict with your previous positions on the USA using any WMD's itself?

I garentee more Iraqi civilians will be killed by the US than non-Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam.

I hope so.  That is the whole point of this, to keep him from killing any non-Iraqi civilians, after all.  

Now, I hope that the USA doesn't kill any civilians.  I know that is a fleeting wish.  But, I also don't consider anyone that points a gun at a USA soldier a civilian anymore.  I also don't consider people that decide to be human shields as civilians anymore either.  If they chose to go sit in front of a SAM site, they may as well put on a uniform in my opinion, because they have decided to put themselves into combat.

One last point.  How many will Iraqi civilians will die due to Iraqi actions?  More or less?  That is a big question.  If they use chemical or biological weapons, they could very well spread to the Iraqi people too.

Add to that that the US has already been bombing various anti-aircraft instalations for a few weeks.

The US has been doing this for 10 years, not two weeks.  I know it doesn't make the headlines most of the time, but if you read deep into the news, it happens almost every month (sometimes more then once a week).  It happens when Iraq decides to turn on a anti-aircraft radar and point it over the "no-fly" zone.  Or put a sam where they aren't allowed to.  The USA (and UN approved) has had a zero tolerance policy about that since this all started over a decade ago.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm not sure if this is common practice or not since I haven't really lived through a war before, but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda. Why do they do this? I was very dismayed to see it.

Tasty, it could be because public opinion has shifted to more of an pro Bush stance on this.  CNN was showing some of the polls yesterday, and in everyone, Bush had gained support (70% in some cases, with only 18% opposed).  

That, and if war is a foregone conclusion, supporting our military is the right thing to do.  

I say that because if the democratic process is followed, you should support it, even when it's not the outcome you wanted.  That's the price of democracy.  You can be against the war, against Bush's policies, but to not support the armed forces (as happened in the Vietnam era) is complete bullshit.  So, some of this may be rubbing off on the media as well.

[tasty]

More on the wartime coverage thing: here is a study from FAIR:

http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html

that pretty much sums up what I said.

Bucc: I just saw a CNN poll 2 days ago that said if Bush didn't bring the war to a vote in the UN, that only 48% supported it. Since he didn't ever call the vote, I'm going to assume that that poll still holds true. Also, if a majority supports the war, that doesn't mean that the opinion of the minority should be supressed completely. That is undemocratic and pure bullshit. The media's job is not to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. It is to cover the war, both the good and the bad, in an unbiased manner. I know people in the military, and I wish the best of luck to them.  Hopefully they can get out of there with as few casualties as possible.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc: I just saw a CNN poll 2 days ago that said if Bush didn't bring the war to a vote in the UN, that only 48% supported it. Since he didn't ever call the vote, I'm going to assume that that poll still holds true.

Polls are funny that way.  It's all in how the question is asked.  Yesterday's WSJ had one that just asked if you supported the President's position in going to war, and it got 62% approval, and like 15% undecided if I remember correctly.  And it was remarked that this was up 8 points from when the asked the exact same question a couple months ago.  So, they all have to be taken with a grain of salt.  But everything I've seen shows a trend in more favor towards going to war.

Also, if a majority supports the war, that doesn't mean that the opinion of the minority should be supressed completely. That is undemocratic and pure bullshit.

Whoa, stop right there.  That's not what I said.  I said you can still be against Bush and the war.  That is also part of our democratic process.  The point I was making is you can't be against the armed forces, for the application of the decision, like it or not.  This happened to our forces in the 60's and 70's, and was completely wrong.  

If you think it was right then, or now, to spit on a soldier for doing his duty, then I'll have lost all respect for you.  

So, please, go back and notice that I said I think the media may be reacting to that (over correcting for past sins).  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I never said those in the duel had equal reflexes and aim.  The point is that the weaker one will die regardless of what he does so he might as well keep his weapon and attept to wound the other than just put it down and be killed.

As for the WMD use, I said Saddam would be justified to use them ON US troops, not on US civilians.  Just like the US could use them on Iraqi millitary but not on Iraqi civilians (by this logic, not by the established rules of war).  Also, since he isn't really being given the rights of a real nation, there is no reason why Iraq should follow such rules.  If you don't get rights of some jurisdiction, then in my opinion you have no obligation to follow the laws of that jurisdiction.  The US does have the rights so they have reason to follow the laws, but anyway, the WMD use they've had in the past has largely affected civilians.

Any Iraqi civillians killed because of Iraqi action go on the US's responsibility since the action was a result of the US attack.

Bucc, today I heard Rush talking about how you can't support the troops but not support Bush.  I think that is bullshit and I think you may agree from what you said.  I support our troops in such that I want them to be safe, but I don't support the reason they are fighting...which is not of their control so they get none of the blame.  I think it is fully reasonable (especially since in this case war isn't a result of democratic process but rather of the US's dictatorship lead of the world) to maintain an anti-war stance throughout the war, as long as you don't spread the opposition to the action to the opposition of those who are used in the action.

About Vietnam, I don't know anyone who doesn't have major issues with the war itself, but the people who attacked those who faught it, often unwillingly, and their families is just awful.

[tasty]

Bucc: It seemed like you were trying to justify the censorship of major newsmedia by saying that a majority of people supported the war. That's the only reason I flew off the handle. I doubt they are trying to overcompensate for Vietnam, my thoughts are they are trying to be as uncontroversial as possible which in my mind is highly controversial.

I don't plan on spitting on anyone and I sympathize with the soldiers for their plight. But where is the line drawn between policy and the application of policy? Is it right for soldiers to perform tasks required of them if they are ordered to do something terrible? I don't really have clearly formed opinions on this yet. The attitude of the soldiers I've talked to (recently at a party 2 days ago) was that they were apprehensive about the possibility of war and not necessarily supportive of it, but that if they did end up fighting a foreign war that they expected respect upon returning, which I thought to be reasonable.

Bondo: Saddam is justified to defend himself from attack but I don't think the use of WMD is EVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances. I don't think death on either side is justified, and you really seem to be holding the US to a double standard.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I never said those in the duel had equal reflexes and aim.  The point is that the weaker one will die regardless of what he does so he might as well keep his weapon and attept to wound the other than just put it down and be killed.

It's why I think your analogy doesn't fit.  He could have put the gun down and lived in my anology.  In yours, he dies both ways.  Do you really think mine doesn't fit the situation better?  Especially since Iraq is much like the criminal on parole.  The US just isn't the cop (that would be the UN), but a private detective or bounty hunter instead under current circumstances.  

As for the WMD use, I said Saddam would be justified to use them ON US troops, not on US civilians.  Just like the US could use them on Iraqi millitary but not on Iraqi civilians (by this logic, not by the established rules of war).  

I don't agree in the use of chemical weapons in most cases (tear gas being a notable exception) and don't agree in the use of biological weapons in any case.  

Yes, you are equal in your application, but one of the reasons against both chemical and biological weapons are that you can't really control them.  Can't keep them from hitting the wrong people.  You think a 2000 pound bomb is inaccurate, think about changing winds, or one person getting infected and becoming a Typhoid Mary.  No, I find the use of them against people unjustified, whoever is pulling the trigger.

Any Iraqi civillians killed because of Iraqi action go on the US's responsibility since the action was a result of the US attack.

Part of my point was, what about all the ones killed before by Iraq?  All the blood already on Saddam's hands?  I didn't state it well, but it's there.

Also, I don't agree that if he chooses to use WMD's and Iraqi's are killed, it's not his fault.  That's like saying that me fighting off a mugger with a 'nadelauncher and killing 5 innocent bystanders in the process isn't my fault.  Let alone like me fighting off a cop, which is more accurate in my opinion.

Bucc, today I heard Rush talking about how you can't support the troops but not support Bush.  I think that is bullshit and I think you may agree from what you said.

I agree except in one small detail that I implied but didn't say.  Yes, having an anti-war stance is fine.  Voicing your opinion is fine.  Not just fine, but part of the system I believe in.  But, when I spoke about accepting it as part of democracy I also meant not denouncing it and leaving because it went against the way you think.  That's the price of democracy.  Yes, voice your disapproval of the policy, by all means.  It's as important as the people voicing the other side of the issue.  But, not supporting our nation, or it's forces is what's not excusable.  Saying that "I didn't get my way so I'm taking my ball and going home" because you were out voted isn't democracy, it's childish.  If you believe in democracy, how can you not believe that?

You are an exception because you hate the USA, so you should move.  Not based on one policy, but based upon the nation as a whole.  That's the difference.  

About Vietnam, I don't know anyone who doesn't have major issues with the war itself, but the people who attacked those who faught it, often unwillingly, and their families is just awful.

Yes, but I brought that up as a possible reason that the media had shifted of late.  They don't want to be even hinted at of having that posture again.  That's a theory anyway.

[Overthrow.aHa!]

but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda.    Would that be the Press Citizen or the Gazette?  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, my analogy was looking at his "death" as leader, not his literal death.  Peaceful or not, there will be a regime change.  As such it is the same result for him, but a different result to the US.  To him, having the US be unwounded is not as good as having them be wounded.  That they are on parole doesn't affect the clear advantage to him to keep and use the weapons rather than give them up.

Anyway, to both you and Tasty, I don't think Saddam should use his WMD, I just don't find their use particularly unacceptable given his situation and acting in his own self-interest.  It is reasonable that he would use them.  Just as it could be reasonable not to quit smoking even though it causes harm.  This is the basis of assumed human cost/benefit analysis in all actions.

I certainly place the deaths of Iraqis related to Saddam maintaining internal power to be on his hands, not the US.  But I consider the US in part responsible for those that die in his attempt to maintain external power.  It doesn't justify their deaths but it does remove some blame from him.  Take for example if police are in a shootout with a criminal.  If the police accidentally hit someone, the criminal is held responsible.  He is being blamed because he was the reason for the accident to occur.  I think this generally responds to your analogy.  More directly though, it is a common practice in police chases that they be called off if public safety is too greatly risked.  That alone shows that the police take some responsibility in not confronting the criminal in a manner that results in danger to innocent bystanders.  Similarly the US would take some responsibility for those that are killed by Saddam as a result of our war.

As for the war support issue, I would argue that this war is in no way democratically approved.  As such I see no reason for people to accept that their side was simply not the majority.  I think by pulling the resolution from the table and ignoring the UN, they avoid democratic validation.  If the UN approved the war, then I think those opposed to the war would have to accept it, but I don't consider it democratically validated because a questionable majority of Americans support it.

The Gazette (the specific name of my local paper in Colorado Spings) has been all about pro-war propaganda from day one.  After all they covered the tear gassing of the anti-war rally as if the police had no fault at all when there is great indication that they acted excessively.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc: It seemed like you were trying to justify the censorship of major newsmedia by saying that a majority of people supported the war. That's the only reason I flew off the handle.

Well, now you see, so all is well there.  But I strongly oppose your use of the word censorship!  You (and Bondo later) both color this a little too zealously.  Who was censored?  What did they try to say?  They may have changed their opinions, they may have changed their stance, but who censored anything?

They way you both say it, it seems like you wish the people that support war were actually censored.  I keep hearing that "the media is afraid", "the media is just repeating the governments stance", "propaganda".  Please explain to me why, if many of the American Public can agree with the war, the media can't be?  And if they do they are being "censored" or the rest of it?  You haven't said it all Tasty, but you seem to have the same stance, which is why I'm asking you.

I don't plan on spitting on anyone and I sympathize with the soldiers for their plight. But where is the line drawn between policy and the application of policy? Is it right for soldiers to perform tasks required of them if they are ordered to do something terrible? I don't really have clearly formed opinions on this yet.

That's a big question Tasty, with one huge internal flaw.  Terrible is as subjective as you can be.  Some would think it terrible for them to ever take a life, even in defense of their own.  Some obviously didn't think the concentration camps of WW2 were terrible.  

What they have is the law.  If an order is lawful, they should follow it.  They, like the rest of us, have to put our faith in our laws.  Our laws can change if they are found to be wrong, but we need the guideline, to make it non-subjective.  

The USA declaring and going to war is lawful today.  If you think it shouldn't be, then you should look to change the laws.  Soldiers have plenty of laws, and "rules of engagement" they must follow.  If they think they are ordered to act outside of these, they have recourse.  If they just think it's wrong to go into Iraq, that's their opinion, but their job still has to be done, it's not a choice.

Bondo: Saddam is justified to defend himself from attack but I don't think the use of WMD is EVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances. I don't think death on either side is justified, and you really seem to be holding the US to a double standard.

Pretty much the way I see it too.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, my analogy was looking at his "death" as leader, not his literal death.  Peaceful or not, there will be a regime change.  As such it is the same result for him, but a different result to the US.  

That's still where your analogy fails Bondo.  When Iraq was told to "drop the gun", there was no regime change required.  They've been told to "drop the gun" for years now.  They ignored it until the shotgun was pressed up against their heads.  Now, they are still refusing, not giving any options.  Now there would be no change, but when they were asked to disarm (for years, and they agreed to it), they didn't.  They have refused the whole time.  So now, just in the last few days, has the change in regime been the final outcome.  Not before.

I don't think Saddam should use his WMD, I just don't find their use particularly unacceptable given his situation and acting in his own self-interest.  It is reasonable that he would use them.  

Then you and I have completely different definitions of what is reasonable.  It wouldn't surprise me if he uses them, but I don't find it reasonable at all.

More directly though, it is a common practice in police chases that they be called off if public safety is too greatly risked.  That alone shows that the police take some responsibility in not confronting the criminal in a manner that results in danger to innocent bystanders.  

Ah, and if no WMD's are used, I can agree with your logic for the most part.  Problem is, we are talking about WMD's.  If a cop kills a bystander while using "excessive force" he is very much held responsible.  

I'll give a real life example.  There was a police chase here.  The cop had already been fired at by the criminals.  He was in a car chase.  He decided to return fire (while driving the car).  He hit a bystander.  The cop was held responsible, not the crooks.  The cop was still supposed to act responsibly.

BTW, you have one thing very backwards in your logic.  The USA (the cops) aren't the ones we are worried about using WMD's.  It's the criminal.

But, that's still not close enough to the use of WMD's.  Go back to my earlier analogy.  A guy being attacked, for the right or wrong reasons, cannot just pull out a grenade and toss it into a room, killing innocent bystanders, in the name of self defense.  He can respond to force with force, but not indiscriminately.  

But, without the use of WMD's I agree that both sides share in some of the blame for the loss of innocent lives.

As for the war support issue, I would argue that this war is in no way democratically approved.  

And I argue that you are completely off base with that.  The USA doesn't now, nor ever has, needed the sanction of the UN to go to war.  Moreover, since the UN isn't even as democratic as the USA (remember all those inequality of powers you talked about before?), it's approval or not isn't more democratic, it's less.  First, it's not like the whole UN has to agree, or even a majority.  Second, with the excessive veto rights, all but one could agree, but something still not pass.

We in the USA have laws that govern how this works.  That makes it democratically approved.  Not only that, but in every poll inside the US that I have seen, more are supporting it then not.  Once it goes to Congress (and it has to at some point, as says the law), you'll see democracy in action again.

But, your belief that the UN is the end all, be all governing body (which I don't agree with, since we don't have a world government), doesn't make it less democratic.  I don't believe that the French, for instance, have any more say in who we go to war with then we do them.  If they oppose us, they are free to join with Iraq as well.

So, in no way, do I see it being less democratic since the UN hasn't approved of it.  I see it as being less accepted.  I see it as being less justified.  But not less democratic.

The Gazette (the specific name of my local paper in Colorado Spings) has been all about pro-war propaganda from day one.  

Just pointing out that you used propaganda again.  So I'll ask you the question to.  Why is it that any opinion that is "pro-war" has to be looked at as propaganda?  Isn't that just you belittling the contrary opinion again?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

So now, just in the last few days, has the change in regime been the final outcome.  Not before.

Just pointing out that you used propaganda again.  So I'll ask you the question to.  Why is it that any opinion that is "pro-war" has to be looked at as propaganda?  Isn't that just you belittling the contrary opinion again?

I used propaganda because the post I quoted used propaganda.  On the other hand since I clearly discribed a case where it was twisting the truth to belittle the anti-war protesters, it very much would count as a move of proaganda for the war.  Contrary opinions are one thing, telling falsehoods as truths is another (before you say anything about my posting falsehoods as truths, I don't often make the claim that I'm saying facts, I mostly am saying opinions based on facts).

Don't kid yourself, regime change has been all but assured since Bush decided Iraq had problems, there was nothing Saddam could have done to avoid the regime change.  Perhaps he could have at somepoint in the past 13, but not in the past 18 months or so.

About the UN being democratic, I'd ask that you take a look at my adaption of the US democratic documents for the world stage.  It would be a true democracy.  Anyway, the main reason the UN isn't a democracy is because the US is so powerful that they'd prefer to just be the dictator.  I don't care what the US internally does, that wouldn't make the war democratic because it doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq.  Only the UN could give a democratic sort of approval to this war by having a majority vote (vetos aside).  It wasn't going to happen and so this war is not democratically justified, no matter what the Congress or US public think.

[jn.loudnotes]

First of all, the best support for the troops might be to get them out of a war and home as soon as possible.  I think in general it's good to question laws - all of them - even as you support their application.  If they're changed, you can support the change and still debate it.  In this forum, for example, we've talked about our opinions of the president - but one of the great things about this country is that even though some of us hate him - we haven't responded in a way that defied the law.  (Civil disobedience being a notable exception)

Also,

The USA declaring and going to war is lawful today.

Here it's lawful for the US, because the US makes it's own laws.  Anything the United States government does will be lawful by it's own standards.  However, I don't believe it's actions would be considered lawful under established international law.

But back to the original concern I had in this topic -

With Saddam Hussein being a pretty clear madman, I had minor concern of his using WMD before this war.  Now though, I wouldn't trust him to use logic - it seems he would be extremely likely to attack using them at the first opportunity.  If he doesn't, I would question whether he actually has them - or whether his notorious reputation is so deserved as to warrant the war.

[tasty]

Overthrow: haha, I don't even read those rags when I am in Iowa City. I was actually referring to the Des Moines Register. The Press-Citizen is probably busy covering a 116 year old grandma who makes quilts and sends them to soldiers to say I love you.

Bucc: Laws aren't always the most concrete thing. People say all's fair in love and war, but what if some soldier gets William Calley as their commander?

I believe it is the media's job (in regards to opinions/editorials) to make an effort to present both sides. I also think that it is the duty of the media (or at least it should be) to question authority. I use the word censorship because when the media does not present a point of view, that point of view essentially does not exist in the eyes of the public. The media plays a critical role in controlling public opinion about basically everything. Generally, people believe what they read in the newspaper. If they hear it all from one side and not the other, than there is no option or free thought, there is only that single media-reinforced point of view. Public point of view and media have a reciprocal relationship. Public opinion reflects the media. Therefore, the media cannot and should not be trying to reflect public opinion.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

With Saddam Hussein being a pretty clear madman, I had minor concern of his using WMD before this war.  Now though, I wouldn't trust him to use logic - it seems he would be extremely likely to attack using them at the first opportunity.  If he doesn't, I would question whether he actually has them - or whether his notorious reputation is so deserved as to warrant the war.

You weren't afraid of Saddam Hussein using these weapons because you NEVER thought about him or that region of the world before the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. It is pretty clear to a majority of the people that he has these weapons, and as he has shown in the past, he is willing and capable to use them.

If you do no think he has these weapons, ask yourself this:

Why would he destroy his stockpiles inbetween 1998 (when the inspectors were kicked out) and 2002 (when inspectors were allowed back in)? He had no motivation to destroy any of his weapons because he knew he had a long period of time to hide his weapons. Let's be realistic here...inspectors would have never found anything because Saddam has had over four years to hide items in a country with the land mass of California. Anyone with any intellect could hide anything from anyone given four years and that much land space.

As for why he wouldn't use his weapons, he might be afraid that world opinion would turn on him seeing that almost all of the countries who are anti-war would change their opinions and support the US. Saddam is a spinmaster, and always tries to make the situation play into his favor...using WMD within his own country would make him look really bad and would tarnish his reputation among arabs. Seeing that Saddam cares about his reputation above all else, he might be compelled to not use the weapons.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I used propaganda because the post I quoted used propaganda.  On the other hand since I clearly discribed a case where it was twisting the truth to belittle the anti-war protesters, it very much would count as a move of proaganda for the war.  Contrary opinions are one thing, telling falsehoods as truths is another (before you say anything about my posting falsehoods as truths, I don't often make the claim that I'm saying facts, I mostly am saying opinions based on facts).

What falsehoods did they print Bondo?  All you gave was this:

The Gazette (the specific name of my local paper in Colorado Spings) has been all about pro-war propaganda from day one.  After all they covered the tear gassing of the anti-war rally as if the police had no fault at all when there is great indication that they acted excessively.

Pardon my ass, but saying there is indication that they acted excessively (your opinion) doesn't mean the papers have to share in it.   How many protesters were killed?  How many seriously injured?  What was the ruled caues of the use of tear gas?  Was it within normal police policy?

There are a world of questions there, that you dismiss as propaganda.  What truth did they twist?  You accused them of spouting pro war propaganda since day one, it shouldn't be hard to find a good example for me.

Don't kid yourself, regime change has been all but assured since Bush decided Iraq had problems, there was nothing Saddam could have done to avoid the regime change.  Perhaps he could have at somepoint in the past 13, but not in the past 18 months or so.

Bullshit.  I don't agree with you at all.  Without war, Bush has no way to force the regime change.  If Iraq had disarmed, there would be no way to push it.  18 months, pfft, I say 3 weeks, since US decided to act with or without UN support.  That's when it was no longer an option, not before.  Don't say I'm kidding myself, give me a reason.  How could Bush have enforced it?

About the UN being democratic, I'd ask that you take a look at my adaption of the US democratic documents for the world stage.  It would be a true democracy.  

Fiction.  Pure fiction.  Your ideas have nothing to do with the actual state of the UN.

Anyway, the main reason the UN isn't a democracy is because the US is so powerful that they'd prefer to just be the dictator.  

That's not the main reason at all.  That's just another jab at America.  It's not a very good democracy because it's not structured to be.  World powers were named and given more rights then others.  That forever limits it, at least until it's changed.

Only the UN could give a democratic sort of approval to this war by having a majority vote (vetos aside).  It wasn't going to happen and so this war is not democratically justified, no matter what the Congress or US public think.

Excuse me?  So, America is no longer considered a democracy?  We aren't talking about the world's opinion of America, the point I said, IN CONTEXT, was in regards to the internal workings.  We are part of a democracy here in America.  Going to this war has followed the forms and laws we have.  So, if you are part of this democracy, that is the outcome.  

Remember, the USA never gave up it's rights (and going to war is one of a nations rights) to join the UN.  It doesn't need UN approval.  Your opinion that the UN is more qualified to run our country isn't shared (thank God) by most of our nation.  So, I really don't see how you can say it hasn't followed a democratic process.  

Thanks for pointing out that it's not Congress, or the public, but only those on Bondo's side that Bondo cares about.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think in general it's good to question laws - all of them - even as you support their application.  If they're changed, you can support the change and still debate it.  In this forum, for example, we've talked about our opinions of the president - but one of the great things about this country is that even though some of us hate him - we haven't responded in a way that defied the law.  (Civil disobedience being a notable exception)

Not just good, but necessary.  Our government, our judicial system, all of it, is based upon multiple voices, about debating the issues, and, once heard, majority rules (in most cases).  So challenge the decision all you want, but respect the other side too.  It's not just propaganda.  Either side can say that.

But, I also emphasize the point of supporting their application.  Loudnotes, you should think about that, because I agree with just how you put it.  And that includes the draft.  Which you previously said you wouldn't go (or am I mistaken).  Since to have a draft, it would be law, if you protest it but abide by it, you would have to go (if called), wouldn't you?

Here it's lawful for the US, because the US makes it's own laws.  Anything the United States government does will be lawful by it's own standards.  However, I don't believe it's actions would be considered lawful under established international law.

What established international law do you think the USA is breaking?  I don't know of any law that says the UN has to approve a war.  I do know that there are provisions for wars in international laws.  So I'm interested to know which laws you think were broken?  At worst I think the UN may attempt a resolution telling the USA to back off, but I honestly don't think that likely.  

With Saddam Hussein being a pretty clear madman, I had minor concern of his using WMD before this war.  Now though, I wouldn't trust him to use logic - it seems he would be extremely likely to attack using them at the first opportunity.  If he doesn't, I would question whether he actually has them - or whether his notorious reputation is so deserved as to warrant the war.

Loudnotes, while your logic is sound on the surface, there's two little problems with it.

First, You don't trust him to use logic, so you can't really apply your logic to him, can you?  By him being illogical (and a madman), there's really no way to say for sure what his reasons would be for making the choice.  Knowing that, you can't base any conclusion off his actions with a good amount of faith.

Second, and even more to the point, he didn't (as far as we know) use them in the fist Gulf War, but, we know he had them (he admitted to it, and did prove that they destroyed a small part of their stockpiles, just not all of them).  So, if he had them, and didn't use them before, he's just not predictable in this way.  So I wouldn't judge his having WMD's on if they show up in the war or not.  I'll base it on if occupation troops (who will be inspecting much more then the few the UN had there) find anything.