OT - Political, but must-read

[NoMyths]

I've been wondering why it's been so impossible for the administration to convince most of the country that war in Iraq is necessary. Just read one of the best news stories about why that I've come across: Newsweek: The Arrogant Empire.
Regardless of your stance on the war I consider this a must-read...really informative and gives a pretty good introduction to why so much of the world is concerned about America right now.

[Fritz]

I got as far as "Franco-Russian" and started thinking about what lousy raviolli they must make. Then I ate lunch.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by NoMyths
I've been wondering why it's been so impossible for the administration to convince most of the country that war in Iraq is necessary. Just read one of the best news stories about why that I've come across: Newsweek: The Arrogant Empire.
Regardless of your stance on the war I consider this a must-read...really informative and gives a pretty good introduction to why so much of the world is concerned about America right now.

If Clinton was in office, there wouldn't be any protest (or it would be minimal). These people simply hate GWB. That's all.

[Radii]

That is a good read. Lots of interesting information that I wasn't aware of.

One question. What makes military action "legal" or "illegal" in the eyes of the international community? The article talks about Clinton and Bush, Sr using military force without even consulting UN and no one having a problem with it, etc. But the sentence I'm curious about is this:

"Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.”"

I'm not interested in the right or wrong here, I've tried to look this up without success, where is the legality of such actions documented in the international community/UN/NATO/whatever?

[KWhit]

Excellent article. It expresses my thoughts and fears much better than I have been able to do in other posts. I truly believe that war with Iraq may be the best option, but the arrogance that this administration has approached the problem has devastated our relationship with the rest of the world.

Too many people on this board are of the opinion that you're either for the war or you're a traitor. I wish they would read this article to understand how the rest of the world (and many US citizens) view the current administration's policies.

[Havok]

holy shit thats wierd... i was just readint that article before i came and checked these boards.

Did you see it at Drudge Report.com??

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Radii


"Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.”"

I'm not interested in the right or wrong here, I've tried to look this up without success, where is the legality of such actions documented in the international community/UN/NATO/whatever?

Good question. I don't know the answer per se, but I believe the administration's position is that Iraq is in defiance of the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War by not disarming.

So, if Iraq defies the cease fire and the US attacks it's really just a continuation of Gulf War 1.

(At least I have heard it characterized that way by Rumsfeld - never actually heard the pres say that...)

[Radii]

Originally posted by Havok
holy shit thats wierd... i was just readint that article before i came and checked these boards.

Did you see it at Drudge Report.com??

The only time things like this ever happen to me is when I'm clicking on boobies links at fark.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
If Clinton was in office, there wouldn't be any protest (or it would be minimal). These people simply hate GWB. That's all.

What are you talking about? Do you really believe that?

[GrantDawg]

Good article which I believe is about 50% correct. You pick the 50%.

[vtbub]

An excellent read. While I am supportive of action in Iraq, I have been very frustrated with how the administration has presented it's case. It seems that the Administration has fallen trap to the axiom, I think politican A is stupid, therefore everything that Mr. A did was stupid. Just dumb.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally posted by KWhit
Too many people on this board are of the opinion that you're either for the war or you're a traitor. I wish they would read this article to understand how the rest of the world (and many US citizens) view the current administration's policies.

I've been trying to say that for months now, but I haven't worded it as well as KWhit. Great post.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by KWhit
Excellent article. It expresses my thoughts and fears much better than I have been able to do in other posts. I truly believe that war with Iraq may be the best option, but the arrogance that this administration has approached the problem has devastated our relationship with the rest of the world.

Too many people on this board are of the opinion that you're either for the war or you're a traitor. I wish they would read this article to understand how the rest of the world (and many US citizens) view the current administration's policies.

Curious, but who are these "too many people"? I'm not saying they don't exist, because I think I have read a statement here or there that indicates this as well, but the instances seem far and few between to me. Most people here seem to be as for the right of everyone to give their opinion without reprisal as I have found in most of the U.S.

For example, I have been very pro-war for some time now. Do I qualify as one of these people you are talking about?

Careless statements like these should either be minimized or more accurately stated, with supporting evidence. I, and much of the pro war community here at FOFC, have been characterized too often during the many Iraq debates as holding to some of the same extreme stances of a very limited few, such as a few weeks ago when I was put together with a couple posters who spewed hatred against the Iraqui people and against people of Middle eastern descent, despite the fact that I soundly and harshly rebuked those same people in the very same thread. Or the generalization made last week by Joe Canadian (a dead issue, but still to the point).

I think we need to start being a lot more careful with statements like KWhit's, because statements that are basically inaccurate and indefensible only serve to raise the level of antagonism here on the board.

I, for one, do not think that the war-protesters here or anywhere are traitors, and fully support their right to express their opinion. As being pro-war, though, I would ask KWhit to either clarify his statement or renounce it, because I fear by leaving it as is, he is--intentionally or unintentionally--grouping all pro-war posters here as thinking war-protesting posters are traitors. To read his statement, you would think that was the prevaling view here and I think that it is just wrong. And if that is aimed at the bulk of pro-war posters, than I deeply resent that he would come to such a generalized conclusion about my opinion on that, which is in fact completely and blatanly false.

I would imagine that other peo-war posters will feel the same way about a statement like that.

Chief Rum

Chief Rum

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by astralhaze
What are you talking about? Do you really believe that?

Yes, I do. Many of these who are "protesting" simply hate Bush. Where were the protests for Kosovo?

[Buddy Grant]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Yes, I do. Many of these who are "protesting" simply hate Bush. Where were the protests for Kosovo?

I agree that probably most of those protestors hate Bush, but that is obviously not the main reason why they protested. If it was then we'd have seen massive anti-Bush protests throughout his time in office.

[Chief Rum]

There would be protests--by us Republicans because we hate Clinton.

This war is very much about drawing up party lines, astralhaze. Don't even kid yourself that hatred for the other party's victorious candidate isn't a prime motivator in many--maybe even most--Dems' stance on the war.

Chief Rum

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
There would be protests--by us Republicans because we hate Clinton.

This war is very much about drawing up party lines, astralhaze. Don't even kid yourself that hatred for the other party's victorious candidate isn't a prime motivator in many--maybe even most--Dems' stance on the war.

Well, I can only speak for myself. I am against the war period. I was against the Kosovo intervention, I was against the attack on Sudan, I was against Clinton bombing Iraq. I don't know the percentages, but I am sure that there many more who feel the same. As for Democrats who are now coming out with missgivings about the war, of course that is politicaly motivated and I will not dispute that. However, I think that a fair portion of anti-war activists would be protesting regardless of who was in office.

[Chief Rum]

Then how do you explain the few protests against the actions in Kosovo or Bosnia? I remember some media-propogated angst, but there weren't hundreds of thousands staging anti-war rallies every Saturday over either of those issues.

Chief Rum

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Then how do you explain the few protests against the actions in Kosovo or Bosnia? I remember some media-propogated angst, but there weren't hundreds of thousands staging anti-war rallies every Saturday over either of those issues.

Chief Rum

Kosovo was too quick and clean.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Then how do you explain the few protests against the actions in Kosovo or Bosnia? I remember some media-propogated angst, but there weren't hundreds of thousands staging anti-war rallies every Saturday over either of those issues.

Chief Rum

More publicity, the growth of the anti-globalization movement since then, and last but not least, the fact that this is simply a much larger attack with, at least in the minds of the protestors, an entirely inadequate justification.

[GrantDawg]

Not only no protest, but many who are protesting (I'm looking at you Sheryl Crow) went to Kosovo to support the troops! Peace at any cost (as long as there is a Republican in the White House).

[Barkeep49]

I agree with all those who say that this wouldn't have been going on with Clinton and there is a good reason for that: Clinton had the trust of people. I'm not opposed to the war per se, but I am opposed to the way that Bush has destroyed NATO, which WAS a functional alliance, and I'm afraid of what will happen in Iraq a year from now; Afghanistan has not been an inspiring example of this administration's commitment to helping nations where we've become involved. This is not something I would have had to worry about if Clinton had been in office and I think a lot of other people both here and abroad would trust Clinton to do the right thing in Iraq, just as so many conservatives here trust Bush to do the right thing.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Not only no protest, but many who are protesting (I'm looking at you Sheryl Crow) went to Kosovo to support the troops! Peace at any cost (as long as there is a Republican in the White House).

Exactly!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Barkeep49
Clinton had the trust of people.

hahahahaha

[Havok]

Afghanistan has not been an inspiring example of this administration's commitment to helping nations where we've become involved.

Whats so wrong with afghanistan??? Capitalism is taking over.... land value around the main citys is sky-rocketing, 1000's of new jobs are being created monthly, businesses all over the world are starting to invest in afganistan, and there democratic goverment is still going strong.

Now i know they still have problems. Such as Warlords fighting eachother in the mountains and the small towns and Opium farming has increased. But that country is a hell of alot better then it was before we moved in. Its not gonna become paradise overnight. With that countrys past its a freaking miricle they're as stable as they are right now.

We never said we were gonna completely rebuild Afganistan like we rebuilt Germany and Japan. We would help them get started... the rest is up to them.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by Barkeep49
I agree with all those who say that this wouldn't have been going on with Clinton and there is a good reason for that: Clinton had the trust of people. I'm not opposed to the war per se, but I am opposed to the way that Bush has destroyed NATO, which WAS a functional alliance, and I'm afraid of what will happen in Iraq a year from now; Afghanistan has not been an inspiring example of this administration's commitment to helping nations where we've become involved. This is not something I would have had to worry about if Clinton had been in office and I think a lot of other people both here and abroad would trust Clinton to do the right thing in Iraq, just as so many conservatives here trust Bush to do the right thing.

First, no, Clinton was a snake. I don't agree with a lot of what Bush says, but at least the man has some semblances of principles.

As far as Bush destroying NATO...well...the USSR falling destroyed NATO more than anything else could...

[Nirvanamats]

Don't forget that George H.W. Bush isn't Bill Clinton's dad, so there was much less will from that president to deploy 300,000 troops to the Persian Gulf all of a sudden.

Really though, the difference with this action and Kosovo is 1) Size of Troop deployment 2) Potential for Casualties 3) General Agreement of the International Community.

Anybody notice that Germany and France weren't bitching when we went into Afghanistan? There was a clear link between Al Quaeda and the Taliban and both were in Afghanistan. The international community could see clearly that it was a retaliatory action against an attack on United States soil. The reason there is so much disagreement now is that there is much less of a direct correlation between 9-11 and Iraq, the evidence chain is almost non existant, which is why you don't hear the Bush administration making any mention of such a DIRECT connection. Instead the excuse that is being used is a treaty that was signed by the previous Bush and has never been followed in full honesty by Iraq. Why is 2002 all of a sudden the time when we get REAL worried about problems? Why didn't the Republican Congresses push for action back when they had the chance? To me it was an action that would never have served Clinton in any way and that's why it didn't happen.

Basically it makes alot of people uneasy that Administration has only grudgingly accepted some small attempts at diplomacy while making it clear all along that what was wanted was a war, and that seems a bit shady to alot of people. By alot of people I mean more than 100 and less than 2 Billion, as for where the figure lies in between I don't trust Conservative OR Liberal sources, BOTH are going to exaggerate their numbers.

Just keep in mind that every war isn't the same, every person isn't the same, the details of anything are usually not the same from on person to the next. People on both sides have their opinions, but to compare one conflict to another one must always realize the significant differences.

[oykib]

I think Bush's shady connection to Energy concerns is a big reason for the protests. If we take his basic points one by one, he's prety close to the mark, though.

Saddam is a bad guy that supplies terrorists.

Check

Saddam has used WMDs before and will, likely, use them again if he's in power.

Check

We can reasonably infer that Saddam will supply terrorists with WMDs if he's got them. We already know that he can produce them and that he supports terrorists.

Check

Saddam has violated the cease-fire agreement about 32,000 times.

Probably

The real problem is that North Korea is a much bigger issue that threatens a much more important ally ( Japan --> Israel w/ Iraq ). The only reason we could reasonably be getting involved with Iraq first is the potential for profit for the big Energy establishment.

We are all, by now, already aware that the Svengali of the Bush Administration ( VP Cheney ) had some crooked dealings with Iraq back in the old days. I think the biggest GOP-lover would admit that Haliburton's previous dealings before, during, and after Desert Storm were, at least, a conflict of interest-- though most other people would go so far as saying it was indefensible or morally reprehensible behavior.

I don't think that we can expect to end this easily. It's possible. But I wouldn't say that the possibility has the likelihood of the Yankees making the playoffs. If it takes us a few years to stabalize the situation in Iraq and the resulting trouble we'll cause in the Middle East, then that is a few years that we can't apply our resources to North Korea.