A War on Terror?

[clio]

Ok, I just wanted to raise a couple of issues here for debate. Supposedly Monday morning, the House will attempt to pass a resolution to approve of action in Iraq. Colin Powell et al., however, have already made it clear that even without support, they would take action anyway.

On Thursday in Boston, a group composed of soldier's familys, five congressmen, and others filed a lawsuit against George Bush for endangering the lives of soldiers in act, which he does not have permission to execute. Remember. Congress has the power to declare war, not thre president, the commander-in-chief.

What are your feelings on this? I never really thought about the constitutionality of it until this week. It may be an issue that they don't have enough numbers. With the terror alert raised, people are just scared. Do you think Congress will be able to pass a resolution when the people's faith in the war is declining?

What do YOU think about the war on terror and the recent terror alert? Is it going to happen?

I'm supposed to be going to Washington and New York for a few days in the second weekend of March. That is when the new moon will take place, when the US will attack from the air, if we do attack.

It is a school trip and a group of students from Prague were supposed to meet us in Washington and come back to Boston with us. This is a yearly event. Because these children are children of US ambassadors and military officials in Europe, they have cancelled their trip to America on advice of the state department. As far as I can tell, we are still going to Washington. And there is NO way I am not going. If we go and cancel our trips, wrap our houses with plastic and duct tape, they've won.

What I hate most is the uncertainty of everything. This war. Terror. It seems so foolish sometimes. We were targeted for the actions that we are about to carry out in Iraq. Talk about asking for it.

What do you think?

[EHG]

First of all Julie, there has been no declared war since WWII. Congress abdicated it's constitutional responsibility to the executive branch some time ago. The 100,000 + Americans that came home in body bags were real - but the Wars were not. The activity in Korea was referred to as a Police Action and in Viet Nam where I lost a lot of buddies I'm not sure what it was I think they refer to it as a 'CONFLICT'.

I was about your age (17) during the peak years of this CONFLICT, just graduated H.S and enlisted in the army (RA (regular army) all the way - I plead youthful idiocy) was assigned to a RECON outfit - what can I say ONE GROWS UP REAL QUICK IN SUCH A SITUATION - I think as an additional reply I will post information about our Presidents Service record after I complete this.

I believe war should be an absolute last resort.
_
I like most of the world believe that there is still a strong possibility that IRAQ can be disarmed with military and economic pressure and without thousands or tens of thousands of body bags.
_
An invasion of IRAQ especially without STRONG UN SUPPORT and without an INTERNATIONAL COALITION of FORCES will cause a huge expansion of the fundamentalist EXTREMIST ISLAMIC MOVEMENT and a universal ISLAMIC JIHAD against the western world - from that point on all will snowball out of control - _
_
I do not believe that Bush's motivations are the security of Americans (many many more will die both soldier and civilian following his current course of action then if he had any wisdom whatsoever) I believe his motivations are economic and with intent to strongly benefit his buddies in the global energy conglomerates.
_
The middle east crisis - the threat of terrorism has two causes - 1. _The Palestinian/Israeli conflict 2. Poverty in the area.
_
He has demonstrated no leadership whatsoever in bringing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to a satisfactory conclusion and until that issue is resolved there will be no stability in the region. _
_
The reason that there are suicide bombers and terrorists is because the youth in the area live in abject poverty and with no hope for a future. _For a small percentage of what this war is going to cost that could change - but it would require wisdom, respect for different culture and a president who does not believe that he can bully the rest of the world to do and be as he wants.
_
IF WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ WITHOUT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE FIRST TO ATTEMPT TO DISARM SADDAM OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - WE WILL WIN THAT BATTLE RAPIDLY BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WILL LOSE THE WAR THAT WILL FOLLOW AS THE ISLAMIC AND WESTERN WORLD POLARIZE THE DESTRUCTION AND HUMAN TOLL WILL EXCEED THE CASULTIES IN IRAQ X millions. _
_
IF THAT OCCURS FUTURE HISTORY BOOKS (IF THERE ARE ANY) will hardly mention SADDAM BUT WILL UNIVERSALY CONDEMN THE BELLICOSE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHOSE DESIRE TO MAKE THE WORLD (free and democratic -even as he destroys constitutional rights for American citizens in the name of security**) IN THE IMAGE HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE. _AMERICA ONCE A LAND THE WORLD LOOKED UP TO WILL BE CONDEMNED AS ALL PREVIOUS CONTRIES HAVE BEEN THAT THOUGHT THEY COULD FORCEABLY MAKE OVER THE WORLD IN THEIR IMAGE
_
**Ashcrofts latest idea - Wider Power to Arrest Terror Suspects and is currently floating a draft of a bill before Congress which would circumvent the Freedom of Information Act. _This would allow secret arrests of anyone the government feels like arresting without disclosing their names. _Under the FOIA this is illegal. _They are dubbing this Patriot Act II _- "PATRIOT" ha they don't even comprehend the meaning of the word - nor what thousands of Americans died for defending.
_
Patriot Act?? _Should be dubbed KRISTALLNACHT II
_
As for North Korea - they did not become belicose until WE FAILED TO LIVE UP TO OUR OBLIGATIONS TO THEM - WE PROMISED THEM ELECTRICAL POWER THROUGH NUCLEAR PLANTS (A TYPE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE USED TO PRODUCE PLUTONIUM) THE COMPLETION DATE OF THOSE FACILITIES WERE YEARS BEYOND WHAT WAS PROMISED! _FURTHERMORE WHATEVER DIALOGUE THAT EXISTED FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WAS DESTROYED AS SOON our 'genius' President decided that CHILDISH NAME CALLING (axis of evil) and personalizing our differences by stating that he "loathed" Kim Jong II the leader of N. Korea was appropriate. _
_
A REAL STATESMEN OUR PRESIDENT IS HUH!

The following link will take you to a page of "SLOGANS" for T-Shirts or whatever for those who desire to protest the War - and a PATRIOTIC SONG which I came across on another board.

ANTI-WAR SLOGANS and a PATRIOTIC SONG

edit

Added to the linked page is the above reply followed by a Los Angeles Times editorial of February 14, 2003 "An Overzealous Patriot"

[EHG]

JUST THE FACTS

You can find extensive information about G.W. Bush's service record at the following url's.

Read about the SERVICE RECORD OF THE MAN WHO IS PREPARING AMERICA FOR WAR

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/1.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...rd_duty+.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...bushguard.cnn/

http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outf...ma_217_01.html

Did I forget to mention the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney managed to secure FIVE draft Deferments to avoid serving in the Armed Forces of his Country while it was at war (Vietnam)

PRIVILEGED ??

The following articles indicate how others were treated if they failed to live up to their national guard or reservist obligations.




Bush was never called to active duty although he admits his attendance was spotty. During one interval he skipped all drills between May 1,1972 and (at least) November 29, 1972. That period of time would have encompassed 24 training periods.

Bush was serving in a champagne unit that was refuge for the area sons of privilege. Its ranks included John Conally's son, Lloyd Bentson's son, John Tower's son, SEVEN Dallas Cowboys, and two sons of the businessman who got G W Bush into the Guard ahead of hundreds of others on a waiting list.

[Zacrifice]

Ok now I aint a political person and I don't understand it 100% so if i'm wrong with something please do mention it.

the UN has been saying pretty much no and have been waiting for the reports to come from the inspecters currently in Iraqe now reports have been coming through that they haven't been working with the inspecters and bush has been saying we have to make them and all this other crap.

Today on the news I heard that Iraqe leader is working with the inspecters and letting them have the information that wont. Maybe not all of it but I suppose you have to give to get how ever also in this news brake it was stated that bush still believes that war needs to take place

Now to me this isn't anything to do with security this has to do with the one minded view that the world needs to comply with america or america will make you.

To me bush doesn't seem to care what the results will be like from the inspecters all he cares about is that he has his war WHICH IS WRONG.

But i suppose i could debate this untill i have run out of breath i could complain and bitch about how wrong it is, I could point by point pull apart bush. But i'll just say I am thankful I am not American but I am ashamed to say I am australian

To have war will be to kill us all!

And here we are claiming we have grown up and that become more refined more accepting and open minded, ****ing bull****!

anywho, I'll crawl back into my hole with my tail between my legs and pray to what ever that we will walk out of this alive and well!

[G.Bloke]

I'm English and so I can't comment on the American constitution, nor do I really think my views on Bush would be held in any regard. What I will comment on is the apparent 'justification' for a war against Iraq.

There appears to be two fundamental issues used to vilify Saddam and his regime, human rights violations in the form of gas attacks made on the civilian population 15 years ago (to quell an uprising) and the alledged posession of weapons of mass destruction.

Now consider this, Winston Churchill (in the 1920s) personally ordered that poison gas be used against the civilian population of a country then under British occupation in order to quell an uprising (sound familiar?) that country was later to become Iraq. Similarly the American use of chemical 'weapons' such as Agent Orange in Vietnam are equally despicable. So without looking to our our recent past we're suddenly on the moral high ground when it comes to Saddam?

Equally the United States has many times the number of legal and illegal weapons that Iraq has and more importantly the US has the ability to not only attack their neighbours but any target around the world. So whats the difference? Well the US and others declare that Iraq is a rogue state, meaning that it refuses to comply with the international will and that it does what it wants rather than what its told ..... but hangon, doesn't that remind you of another country? One that behaves like a cowboy internationally, that ignores the international treaties its already signed, one that ignores the UN (even refused to pay their UN dues for years), one that has no respect whatsoever for international opinion and even tries to bully other countries by bringing trade sanctions against them? Or more apt perhaps a country that seems to enjoy starting a new war against a nation only a fraction of its size every few years.

[EHG]

G. Bloke

What can I say other then I concur with your entire post!

I do want to state that Bush's 'lap dog' Tony Blair is certainly not helping matters.

Like Bush he is ignoring public sentiment - what will be the cost?

The cost will be the most precious commodity that Britain and America possess - OUR YOUTH

At least initially we will pay with the blood of our youth - then as the world polarizes to the Christian-Judeo vs the Islamic World it will be everybodies blood - Men, Women, Children and infants.

[clio]

There is an interesting article written by Michael Ignatiev named "America's Burden" which you might be interested in G. Bloke. It does a good job of explaining why America has the role of the police of the world. It doesn't justify the wrong that Bush wishes to do, but it does give me a better understanding of another point of view.

Like many peope out there, I don't want a war in Iraq but I don't want to fear Sadaam either. I watched the protests all around the world today and it was amazing. And I'm glad to say that the power of the people's voice is still alive. The US and Britain are looking to rewrite Monday's resolution to be of lesser force and not explicitly war. It's not what we want, but it's a start and better than a full fledged war.

EHG, I had no idea you had such strong political feelings! Some are too strong for me though. Calling the Patriot act KRISTALLNACHT II is going a bit too far if you ask me. Kristallnacht was an event, not a law.

You also mention the youth in the area. It's actually amazing though, how much of that is stereotype. Not every Arab hates a Jew and vice versa. Last summer, a group of Israelis, made up of Christians, Arabs, and Jews, came to Boston and I got a chance to meet with them. They were just like us. Although they all shared different political views, they were friends and are willing to live amongst each other in peace. And they shared a view with us in that the adults, the government, was the problem. True, many of them teach the younger generations to hate, but that's the older generation's fault. The organization they came from, Open House, promotes the coexistence of Arabs, Christians, and Jews in peace. Just a thought.

[lookout]

Tony Blair is hardly Mr. Bush's lapdog either. Have you ever seen him on BBC news? He's almost fun to watch doing battle in Parliament, where our bumbling president and several members of his cabinet just frighten the hell out of me. Blair's no fool, and I think he's been somewhat of a moderating influence on the war plans of our current administration.

I don't know what the answer is here, but to me a war with Iraq seemed a foregone conclusion even before 911. The Bush administration set a rather belligerent tone on world affairs pretty much from the get-go, IMHO.

It's all very troubling. I can accept that another war may well be necessary, as our leaders are telling us. But I'm not convinced. I hope wiser, cooler heads will prevail to select a visionary course of action, but there doesn't appear much chance of that happening at the moment.

Hmmm. America's burden. Sounds like a take-off on Kipling's infamous poem.

[Zacrifice]

Another war may be well necessary?

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? War shouldn't even be an option!

Why must we have a war? what will it get us? that america has power and can use it at will? will that make the world a better place? there are other more humane ways of dealing with people who wish to hurt others! (Sadam)

I don't want to live in a world where I have to live in fear of weapons of any form bringing me or my loved ones too a horrible end. I don't want to live in a world where we start wars and kill each other because we have conflicting views!

I don't believe Sadam is handling the situation correctly no but i don't believe that Bush is handling at all well either!


"If only people could work together like they are now in the face of war, maybe if we could all do it together we could bring this world into a new begining somewhere thats free from fear, hate, crime and unessesery sadness"

I babble a lot so ignore me!

[EHG]

I was referring to the so called Patriot Act II that Ashcroft has drafted and has been floating around Congress.

If that act is passed it would allow the government to make people "disappear" in the night -NO QUESTIONS ASKED OR ALLOWED. One of the few tools that keeps America FREE and ultimately gives the power to the people is a FREE PRESS. It's written into the constitution in black and white and the blood of those who have defended it.

If this so called Patriot Act II is passed what is to stop the government from controlling the press? If editors and reporters disagree with the administration - they too can be seen as contributing to the terrorists and "disappear into the night" NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED!

I know what KRISTALNACHT was Julie, I'm a Jew and my mother was born in Poland. Remember Julie every meglomaniac in history has had a segment of the population that will follow them in the name of their cause whatever that may be and be willing to do their dirty work WITHOUT QUESTION. Yes Kristalnacht was an event but read Ashcrofts proposal carefully and tell me that such things could not occur here if it is passed.

The world and it's politics are complex, and I fear far too complex for the limited amount of gray matter between our Presidents ears to comprehend. I believe in the United Nations and I believe that this international organization can and will handle the problem of 'rogue' regimes that endanger member of the international community - they have not shirked their responsibility as Bush insists, they simply are saying that all efforts have not been exhausted to bring Iraq into compliance without a war. But our president made his feelings about the UN known almost from the day of his inaguaration and now has labeled it "IRRELEVENT".

N. Korea ? Well he is busy with Iraq right now - so he will handle N. Korea diplomatically after calling the country part of the "axis of evil" and stating that he "loathes' Kim Jong II. Nothing like handling things diplomatically after labeling the country and personalizing the differences with name calling is there? Why a war with Iraq who is only suspected of being able to cause us harm when a bellicose N. Korea WE KNOW has the ability to cause the U.S. and our allies millions of casulties? That is the reason - if he screws with N. Korea they will turn the capitol of S. Korea into a fire storm, probably take out a good chunk of Japan with a distinct possibility that Hawaii and even Los Angeles could also be decimated. Far to messy - Lets just concentrate on Iraq for now ........

The middle east and the world will not see peace until the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is resolved. Some three years ago or is it four now? the world was a breath away from PEACE - Israel was giving the Palestinians over 80% of what they wanted including Palestinian Statehood and an agreement for the first time in history to share Jeruselum as a Capitol - Jewish Children and Palestinian Children were meeting in schools and learning about how much they had in common - kids on both sides were playing together - Palestinians and Israeli's were jublilant and looking forward to a new era of properity and peace but unlike Anwar Sadat a great and noble statesmen, Arafat failed his people and walked away from the agreement and encouraged another infadata (sp?) and thousands of Palestinian and Jews - Men, Women and Children on both sides have perished.

There will be no PEACE no stopping TERRORISM until the ISRAELI/PALESTIANIAN conflict ends. IT is the root cause of terrorism followed by abject poverty in the area. I have seen only a minimal amount of effort by Bush and his administration to address this issue - the results of which are obvious....9/11!!

The important thing though Julie is whether you disagree or agree with me or President Bush is that YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF and DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AFTER ANALYSING ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. That is the responsibility of YOUTH who soon will be the ones who will have the caretaking responsibilities of this nation passed on to them (if it's still here).

Never fear asking the question "WHY" Julie and keep on asking it until you get an answer that YOU find satisfactory!

[lookout]

Originally posted by Zacrifice
...How on earth do you come to that conclusion? War shouldn't even be an option!

Zac, what conclusion? I said I hadn't been convinced. Possibly there's some compelling reason to take the war route, but like many Americans, I have not seen it yet and am suspicious of the reasons we have been given. Diplomacy and vision should of course be given ample opportunity to resolve things without violence. I only wish I could say I thought these things in more capable hands. This has the feel of a game of chicken. Nevertheless, it's naive to think that diplomacy would work here without some muscle to back it up. It doesn't always play that well on the world scene though.

EHG, thanks for your clarifications. I had initially wondered whether you had gone off the deep end myself in that first post of yours. But the second one helped put your thoughts in perspective for me. Well put. Though IMHO, the U.S. is making a mountain out of a molehill on the North Korean situation.

[clio]

If you ask me, Tony Blair CAN be an idiot. The first rule of being a politician is that you represent the people, and in today's world, the people can kick you out of office in a flash. And yet, Blair is supporting unillateral action now before a UN resolution? And yet, Blair is willing to lead Britains to follow the blind Americans into Iraq without support from other countries? Hell, only 10% of Brits want to do this. 10% is NOTHING today. And even my English friends who supported action, don't want this.

EHG, my feelings about the Holocaust and any other genocide (Cambodian, Rwandan, etc) are that they are the most extreme. One of the things that I am sensitive too is the fact that some people label everything a holocaust. For me personally, invoking the term constantly is disrespectful to those who suffered the unimagineable. The term itself is a memorial to those who suffered and I don't tend to evoke that term often. That is perhaps my own personal opinion and no one else's.

But that's why I would refrain from calling Bush Hitler (some people do) and referring to Kristallnacht. Though I do believe that the Unites States is capable of massive invasions of people's privacy and freedoms, I don't believe it likely that the United States would in a single day murder American civilians on a large scale.

I agree with you 100%. Bush is just beating around the bush. If he really wanted to stop terrorism, he'd take leadership and end the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. But also realize that it's not that easy to just end that conflict. But it's also true that it would be easier if Bush at least looked in the right direction: to the conflict, not war.

What can we say? Bush is not the brighest man in the world nor the greatest leader in the world. He's perhaps the dumbest president we've ever had, but the American people elected him. So what does that say about America?

I'm probably going off on a million tangents right now...

Lookout, yes, the article eludes to that Kipling poem. But the purpose of the article is not to promote the cause of imperialism. It tries to explain what is happening. What we're doing is actually an evolved form of imperialism. And it goes through the consequences of what we're doing and poses the question we all ask: Is it worth it for America to do it? But at the same time, it presents the world without such action, and poses the question: Who else will defend for these people? It's a very good article.

[lookout]

There's so much that has been brought up in this thread that deserves further discussion, but I haven't the time to do so right now myself. So I will just have to settle with saying that on some of these points I'm on the same page as others here. On the others, I'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. No sense in saying exactly what I agree or disagree on, since that would only encourage my further involvement. I can see that this thread has the potential to go on for quite some time.

Before I bow out to the sidelines, I'm curious about the "America's Burden" article you mentioned, Clio. If possible, please post a link to the thing, so others can read it for themselves. Otherwise, it would help if you provided the name of the publication. My quick Google search on it was not fruitful. It did show that the author may be a Russian BBC radio commentator (a rather odd sounding source, considering your description of the content), but perhaps that was someone else.

[clio]

It's a very long article, probably too tedious to reads online. I read it in the magazine. Here's the link anyhoo: America's Burden.

And oops, I spelled his name wrong. It's Ignatieff.

[clio]

This is a GREAT speech related to all this. I hope you enjoy it. It was given on February 12th, by senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of W. Va.

Argh, won't let me paste it, says it's too long.
It looks long but it's quick reading.

We Stand Passively Mute