Gun QUestion for the Yanks...

[Kennedy 0]

Both ways? Nah, they only want it one way every time - the Republicans are wrong, then, now and always.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[CornishChris 5]

I seldom post in here but feel I should after some of the comments here.

Firstly I cannot fathom any comparison made between the current war in Iraq and the second world war in Europe. In WW2 the war had been raging in Europe for several years with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US 'allies' killed and with countries, speicifically England, begging for support from the US prior to their engagement in 1941. In Iraq you have a country that, internationally, was not considered a threat and despite that the US, and coalition, invaded.

In WW2 there was a massive demonstrated threat to the way of life of pretty much everyone in the Western World, the mass extermination of entire races and an obvious and tangible enemy. In Iraq there was an unproven potential threat and loose links to a possible terror network.

I find it offensive to make these comparisons.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Isn't the huge common argument against the war in Iraq that we should not have gone to war there UNLESS it was a threat to us directly?"

No not at all, IMO the justification for the war was fumbled at the international and national levels.

Had the coalition gained security council approval for the liberation I would not have had any issues whatsoever with the subsequent invasion.
The point I have had made, ad nauseum, was that the invasion was not correctly justified, no hard evidence of WMDs, and no link available at the time to OBL.
There is no doubt that the Iraqi regime was guilty of crimes against humanity, the problem was, when he committed those particular attrocities, he was our friend and ally, and that would probably have been quite embarassing for us to make a case for his condemnation.

If anyone actually believes that the argument regarding WMDs is still robust, where are those WMDs now?
Has the war actually moved the WMDs from a location and organisation that we had under very close observation(?).

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"Isn't the huge common argument against the war in Iraq that we should not have gone to war there UNLESS it was a threat to us directly?"

No not at all, IMO the justification for the war was fumbled at the international and national levels.

Had the coalition gained security council approval for the liberation I would not have had any issues whatsoever with the subsequent invasion.
The point I have had made, ad nauseum, was that the invasion was not correctly justified, no hard evidence of WMDs, and no link available at the time to OBL.
There is no doubt that the Iraqi regime was guilty of crimes against humanity, the problem was, when he committed those particular attrocities, he was our friend and ally, and that would probably have been quite embarassing for us to make a case for his condemnation.

If anyone actually believes that the argument regarding WMDs is still robust, where are those WMDs now?
Has the war actually moved the WMDs from a location and organisation that we had under very close observation(?).

Why would a U.N. sanction change your view on whether the war was justified? It either was justified or it wasn't. Are you saying the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi's is OK as long as the UN approved? I really don't understand your thoughts on this. I think the war was justified. Whether the UN approved or not I'd still be consistent.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"The point I have had made, ad nauseum, was that the invasion was not correctly justified, no hard evidence of WMDs, and no link available at the time to OBL."

No hard evidence, no justification.

Lets do the analogy thing.....

If my neighbour is misbehaving, or acting unsocially, I try and sort it out without conflict, on a personal level.
If the situation is not resolved, I will take my complaint to a higher authority, probably the police depending on the situation. If I can't make a case for the neighbour to change his behaviour, I will not usurp the correct authority, even though I know I'm in the right, but I simply can't prove it. Playing by the rules, and maintaining your own limits of authority, is part of belonging to a civilised society.

My concern is that the coalition usurped the proper authority and acted illegally (definitely another discussion) at worst, or set a an unwelcome precedent (unilateral regime change by a foreign country or force) at best.

Who appointed the coalition as the world's policeman?

I reckon we basically agree on things (Saddam was not a good neighbour), but you probably have a lower opinion of the 'proper authority' in this instance.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

No hard evidence, no justification.

I love it how people conveniently ignore the fact that there has been a couple, albeit small, discoveries of WMD's in Iraq. I can understand the fact that we may have sold them to him back in the day, but that point is irrevelant. From 1991 on, he was allowed to possess none.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I love it how people conveniently ignore the fact that there has been a couple, albeit small, discoveries of WMD's in Iraq."

Have our leaders pointed to this evidence as justification for the war?
Has Colin Powell stood up, with a Powerpoint presentation showing pictures of the shells and said "see we were right"?

No.
Because they (WMDs evidenced to date) do not, and did not, represent a clear and present danger to world peace, and the leaders of the coalition know this.
>edit to add<
""I have to accept we haven't found them and we may never find them, We don't know what has happened to them." Tony Blair re-assuring the commons yesterday....

"From 1991 on, he was allowed to possess none."
Agreed, it was pretty clear in the UN resolutions being discussed at the time. It was, however, the responsibility of the UN to enforce those resolutions. It was not the responsibility of individual countries to usurp that authority. This sets an unwelcome precedent (president?).

IMO we should have finished the job in '91.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

America entered WW2 when they got hold of secret information that Hitler was plotting against the US. Before, the US was quite hesitant to get involved. Had Hitler not plotted to invade the US i am not so sure you guys would have come to help.

This is a rather crude explanation for what actually happened. How the hell was Germany planning to invade the US? That threat lacks credibility.

FDR wanted in from early on, but an isolationist America wanted none of this Euro/Asian WW bullshit until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (One that likely was allowed to happen) We then declared war on Japan, Hitler matched per his Axis agreement and onward it went.

Move forward to now - the past 3 administrations wanted to finish off Hussein, but it wasn't until the Towers went down that the public was prepared to give carte blanche to get it done.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If my neighbour is misbehaving, or acting unsocially, I try and sort it out without conflict, on a personal level.

Thats 'cas you don't have a gun sonny! Hell, what else ya supposed to do? YA'ALL NEED GUNS!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Botellines 0]

Quote

This is a rather crude explanation for what actually happened.

Yeah, i know. I was only saying that the US had interests in the war. The US didn´t enter WW2 ONLY to save our European asses.

Quote

How the hell was Germany planning to invade the US? That threat lacks credibility.

Well, i suppose that it wouldn´t have been done right away. Had hitler invaded all Europe and the URSS, in 5 years or so he could have also colonized those countries. 20 years later the first generation of "EuroGermans" would have been born and would be ready to keep invading other countries.
He was so crazy anyway that he may have even tried to keep 3 fronts open at the same time.

Quote

Move forward to now - the past 3 administrations wanted to finish off Hussein, but it wasn't until the Towers went down that the public was prepared to give carte blanche to get it done.

actually the public would have given more carte blanche to invade Irak and finish off SH in 1991 when the UN gave its full support. Besides, i think that GWB spent all his credits attacking Afghanistan and not finding Osama Bin Laden and then going to Irak.
It is happening like with hitler, he has to many fronts open. Now, if North Korea gets cocky, you are pretty much out of soldiers to impose some common sense in their heads.

[billvon 2,400]

>Have our leaders pointed to this evidence as justification for the war?

Nope. I think there are two sorts of pro-war people - the kind that say "We found them! We found the WMD's! Take that, stupid liberals!" and the kind that are intelligent enough to be embarrassed by claims that a handful of old shells are the thousands of liters of Sarin we claimed Saddam had. So far the intelligent ones are predominating, and Karl Rove knows that.

[Kennedy 0]

OK, here's the scenario:

Country A wants to invade Country 3
World Nations group doesn't agree.
Country A has has shaky reasons. Country A thinks thats good enough. World Nations group thinks it's not enough.
Country A invades. Country A's evidence appears shaky one year later.

People say the invasion wasn't justified.

---

New scenario has WN agree with A that invading 3 is ok.
A invades. It appears that A's evidence is shaky one year later.

Is it still unjustified, or does a resolution from WN make everything peachy keen?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This is a rather crude explanation for what actually happened.

Yeah, i know. I was only saying that the US had interests in the war. The US didn´t enter WW2 ONLY to save our European asses.

Oh, okay. I'd go so far as to say that saving your asses was just a positive side effect. It certainly wasn't the only, or the primary reason.

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

Is it still unjustified, or does a resolution from WG make everything peachy keen?

Well, look at the difference that having a jury trial by your peers makes. The same thing that's called vengeance or vigilantism when done alone is OK when decided by the court.

While the analogy isn't perfect, it does begin to point out that having more people with the ability to make (and pay for in one way or another) a decision agree with yours gives it some independent validation.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

OK, Wendy you win the sucker prize (for being first to answer).

You're saying more people saying something makes it right. OK.

Well, how about the Dredd Scott decision? LOTS of people said that was right, and it went all the way up the judicial system to the Supreme Court, and they said it was right.

Does that mean slavery is right, because a lot of people said so?

Why does a consensus change things? If you know something is right, who cares if other people agree? Sounds like lazy logic to me.

So like I said, if something is unjustified, does more people saying it's ok make it less so? If something justified, why do you need someone else's approval?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,123]

A consensus of people can add weight. If independent parties can come to the same conclusion based on the same evidence, it acts as some validation of the thought process.

It doesn't mistake-proof them. After all, juries are wrong sometimes -- are you saying that the jury system should be done away with?

Wrong is wrong; right is right, but one person's opinion can also be wrong. One person is more likely to be putting their own individual interests above the common good; taking additional inputs makes it more likely that the common good will be taken into account.

Wendy W.
BTW, you can bring my sucker prize to Skyfest in 2 weeks, and I'll buy you a

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"A consensus of people can add weight. If independent parties can come to the same conclusion based on the same evidence, it acts as some validation of the thought process. "

Thats about it.
Wendy sums it up quite well from my point of view.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[CornishChris 5]

Quote

Country A wants to invade Country 3
World Nations group doesn't agree.
Country A has has shaky reasons. Country A thinks thats good enough. World Nations group thinks it's not enough.

In your simplistic analogy if Country A had not been the US then there would have been hell to pay from the rest of the world...

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I seldom post in here but feel I should after some of the comments here.

Firstly I cannot fathom any comparison made between the current war in Iraq and the second world war in Europe. In WW2 the war had been raging in Europe for several years with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US 'allies' killed and with countries, speicifically England, begging for support from the US prior to their engagement in 1941. In Iraq you have a country that, internationally, was not considered a threat and despite that the US, and coalition, invaded.

In WW2 there was a massive demonstrated threat to the way of life of pretty much everyone in the Western World, the mass extermination of entire races and an obvious and tangible enemy. In Iraq there was an unproven potential threat and loose links to a possible terror network.

I find it offensive to make these comparisons.

Well it's a good thing I have the right to speak my mind even when others might find it offensive.

Try that in FRANCE.

Oh, wait, Brigitte Bardot already did that -- and they CONVICTED her for it as a CRIME.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

"Isn't the huge common argument against the war in Iraq that we should not have gone to war there UNLESS it was a threat to us directly?"

No not at all, IMO the justification for the war was fumbled at the international and national levels.

Had the coalition gained security council approval for the liberation I would not have had any issues whatsoever with the subsequent invasion.
The point I have had made, ad nauseum, was that the invasion was not correctly justified, no hard evidence of WMDs, and no link available at the time to OBL.
There is no doubt that the Iraqi regime was guilty of crimes against humanity, the problem was, when he committed those particular attrocities, he was our friend and ally, and that would probably have been quite embarassing for us to make a case for his condemnation.

If anyone actually believes that the argument regarding WMDs is still robust, where are those WMDs now?
Has the war actually moved the WMDs from a location and organisation that we had under very close observation(?).

Why would a U.N. sanction change your view on whether the war was justified? It either was justified or it wasn't. Are you saying the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi's is OK as long as the UN approved? I really don't understand your thoughts on this. I think the war was justified. Whether the UN approved or not I'd still be consistent.

EXACTLY. These people are making it sound like they would have supported action against Hussein as long as the UN said it was okay. Well, the UN was the body that issued the resolutions and sanctions against Hussein that he subsequently blew off, and all we did was go in after the UN negligently refused to back itself up. Its credibility is GONE. It set rules and then watched idly as they were flouted.

But it's really preposterous that people have this double standard about the morality of the war. If enough countries said it was moral, then it would be moral??

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Well it's a good thing I have the right to speak my mind even when others might find it offensive.

Try that in FRANCE.

Oh, wait, Brigitte Bardot already did that -- and they CONVICTED her for it as a CRIME.

Sorry, but sometimes you are completely off with the fairies….

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Well it's a good thing I have the right to speak my mind even when others might find it offensive.

Try that in FRANCE.

Oh, wait, Brigitte Bardot already did that -- and they CONVICTED her for it as a CRIME.

Sorry, but sometimes you are completely off with the fairies….

It's a good thing. The fairies get a lot of loads up, and I never get bumped by a tandem.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"These people are making it sound like they would have supported action against Hussein as long as the UN said it was okay."

Sigh.... Its like this...Nah fuck it, the concepts described by Wendy above are obviously lost on you. So I'm done with this thread.

Your grasp of global responsibility, and moral issues is only overshadowed by your knowledge of geography.
cya.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Ohhh, am I supposed to feel insulted, now?

Good riddance.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jupija 0]

how did u find the documentary Bowling for Columbine