Mr. Bush should be proud

[mdnky]

Originally posted by adambyte
...whereas, the U.S. is actually more of a republic... we vote for people to represent us.... it was the forefathers' way of leaving the public with influence, while still giving the "elites" most of the power to make laws and such...

You have to remember that the majority of people at that time were unable to read or write. This didn't change until the 1950's.

Originally posted by adambyte
...The elitists believe that the general public doesn't always know what's best for them, and that the "elites" of the government probably know better...

Let me ask you this, do you? If we went through scenerios of events, some you might choose right (10%), the majority you'll choose wrong (90%). A computer tech or engineer may be great in their field, but not in someone else's. Take a doctor out of the controlled envirement of a hospital and put them at the scene of a car wreck...you're asking for trouble. They don't take in the "big picture", and that can be really BAD. While being so caught up in trying to help the victim, they forgot to notice the smell of gas or the high voltage power lines on the ground. Guess what, now they're a second victim or DEAD. BTW, I've seen this happen many times with doctors and nurses, luckily none died but some were hurt bad. 12 years of advanced school may teach lot, but doesn't teach it all including common sense.

[jeb1138]

Yes, regrettably there is a split in Europe and yes, most governments are supporting the US, while the majority of the population is not. I can only speak for the Netherlands at the moment: The current government has fallen some time ago and the two major parties that are to form the new government are divided whether supporting the US or not. Thus there can be no clear statement at this moment whether the Netherlands support US thoroughly or not. The majority of the population is however against war, with or without UN support.

Great, then we agree.

I have to disagree, because both Dr. El Baradei and Dr. Blix have stated clearly that in no way Iraq has or is developing nuclear weapons, although in the past it tried to. Chemical weapons are 'unaccounted for', which can equally mean they don't have them or they have hid them. There are simply no facts of the matter as of now. Thus it seems to me that it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do some more research.

I was under the impression that they have stated clearly that they have in no way seen evidence of Iraq developing or seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Is that incorrect? Whether it would be a good idea to let the inspectors do more research is beyond me at this point. How much U.S./U.K./etc intelligence cannot be disclosed without being compromised? Perhaps we will never know.

Again I disagree. There are clear indications that the disarmament of Iraq is not the only reason for the war. Certainly the US as well as many other countries have economical interest in the Middle-East. Bush's motives are not simple and pure. Waging a war on a country in disarray is not a good way of saving lives. Attacking an other nation while not self under attack does no good to the cause of preventing terrorism.

The potential for payoff is grounds for suspicion, it is not evidence. You truly believe that this man, George Bush, is perverted enough to potentially kill thousands of innocent people, including many of his own, because he wants gasoline to be cheaper? I am sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. Such is murder and is easy for the simplest mind to comprehend. This is a grown man who does comprehend the responsiblity laid upon his shoulders. I do not believe he is so calloused or evil as this.

unless you are a metaphysical realist a statement like this is simply meaningless. Good and bad do not indicate either objectively existing things nor objectively existing properties of things. What is good for me can be bad for you and viceversa. Mors tua, vita mea. Good and bad are categories that are subjective and depend on your personal view of the world, your cultural background, your beliefs, etc. They cannot be absolutely measured.

No, actually I am not a metaphysical realist and it is very meaningful to me. Metaphysical realism entails much more than I would ever consent to. I agree that what is good for you to live longer/prosper/etc. may be different than what is good for me for the same things. That is not, however, basis for claiming that universal truth does not exist. That chopping off your head is not good for you to live longer is indisputable. Neither does it exclude the presence of absolute right and wrong. It is evil to kill another person for pleasure, for example. No philisophical supposition can convince the honest man otherwise. Good and bad are not subjective, they just take a whole lot more qualifiers than people are normally willing to attatch to them. Saying that absolute morality is non-existent is merely the concession that man cannot know everything in combination with the denial of deity. I concede the first and oppose the latter. Good and bad are unchanging and unchangeable. I know many disagree, but they are wrong.

A nice one-liner. How's this one: Life is neither good nor bad, but interesting.

Hey, not too shabby! Keep up the good work! As expected, I have abandoned all former opinions to unite myself with the harmony that is that phrase.

My impression was that he was more or less implying exactly this (Why the plural suddenly though?).

No he was not. The plural because when he made his most memorable (original?) "evil" statement it was regarding the axis of evil: Iraq, North Korea and Iran (I hope that's right...) It is ridiculous to imply that any nation, let alone set of leaders, can be pure evil incarnate.

[jeb1138]

I don't agree that any mode of reasoning needs to be applied. I don't see the necessity. Many other people don't see this necessity, like the Iraqis, France, Germany, my humble self...

Wow, you can speak for all the those people? Forget the U.N., we've got Cat! The public wants things they can understand and they want it concise. President Bush was talking to the public when making these statements and trying to summarize what the present general position and intentions of the U.S. were toward these particular countries in the war on terror. Obviously he doesn't sit in meetings with Colin Powell and say "OK, so Korea is bad, right? What do we do with bad people?" I sincerely hope you don't believe that.

Ahum, you can easily put Berlusconi among these. He tries (and has partially succeeded) to pass laws that will prevent him from being judged for corruption. He tries to maintain personal power through tinkering with laws. Moreover, I am under the impression that the US have several 'personal' purposes in the Middle-East, like economical interests.

You prove my point. Although I am not familiar with the Berlusconi case, a superficial google scan seems only to show that the Italian government is trying and capable in large part of questioning and bringing to trial such a man. I am not familiar with the case, however. The very fact that it is difficult and newsworthy for him to do so is my very point. It is not the presence of individuals who abuse positions of trust they gain from the people that I emphasize. It is the correction and humanity that the system put in place by evil leaders was meant to prevent and actually prevents from happening. It is three things combined: a totalitarianistic regime whose system of government negates the possibility of change by the people or for the people, and whose leaders abuse that power for personal gain without regard to human life, and who pose a threat to this nation. Those who are merely a threat and a plague to their own people should be handled on an entirely different level. Italy is more than capable of dealing with this man (is it not?) and as far as I know U.S. intelligence has not determined any condoned hostile threat from Italy to the U.S. (should it have? )

Bush's statements are not always accurate or justified. Some are plain wrong. E.g. Iraq poses hardly a threat to the Middle-East let alone to the US.

Indeed. I did not mean to imply that all of Bush's statements were, but merely the ones I had been discussing. I can accept the fact that you believe Iraq poses no threat. I have no knowledge with which I can dispute that. I hope if you are right war will not be waged.

Neither do I. The US and some European countries differ mainly in how to deal with the issue. The US seem to favor force, France and Germany (and Russia and China) seem to favor diplomacy. Since nobody has a clue on what is the best, we have to find out. First you send inspectors to Iraq to find out the facts, then you debate the facts and decide a policy. America seems a bit hasty to begin shooting though ...

Amen to your second sentence. (I was going to say "your first two", but that would be soooo rude! jk!) As for the rest, I can say nothing except perhaps....you may very well be right.

In the light of the little attention they seem to pay to opinions that differ from their own, again I disagree and stress that all of them have economical interests in the matter. They have not, for instance intervened with the same emphasis in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or the many civil wars, dictatorships etc. in Africa, where at least as many victims have been made, if the body-count is an argument at all.

The United States has been heavily involved in the Israel-Palestine issue for a very long time. Some would say they are on the wrong side. Nevertheless, they are not passive in this matter. Africa poses no threat to the United States, and it is not the United States' job to police the world. There is no other country, no other situation anywhere in the world with such a consensus and history of consensus and actions pertaining thereto as there is in Iraq. No one disputes that Saddam is a tyrannical and murderous leader. Observe the present difficulty in reaching agreement in a matter with such widespread common ground and history of common action (through the U.N., no less). Can you imagine attempting such action elsewhere? Nor, as I said, should the U.S. presume to be the world's police force. The leaders of this coalition against Iraq are indeed convinced that he poses a very clear a present danger to their nations' security and well-being.

[jeb1138]

I honestly appreciate your directness and candor in stating this. That is a good thing. You have presented many more and better arguments than others in this discussion and personally committed to them. That is admirable. Please don't take my observations as simple mud-slinging or flaming.

Not at all (and thank you for the compliment). I very much appreciate your views and your civil and thorough presentation of them. Thank you. I have much to learn from other countries and, as an American, even more than normal! I still believe your accusations of President Bush's ulterior motives are unfounded and unjust, however.

I'm sorry, but I perceive reality a s being different. War is the last resort, they claim. Yet already all the necessary troops are massed at Iraq's frontiers. The countries that want to give the inspectors more time, so errors in the information can be minimized, are regarded almost as traitors. American officials mock France and germany as being 'old-europe', as if to say that they are not to be taken seriously. Bush speeches resemble increasingly those of war-bent fundamentalists. The attack on Afghanistan certainly was nothing more than vengeance. For the reasons that were give at the time of the invasion, the US would have had to attack them years before that! For the same reasons of removing undemocratic and oppressive regimes the US should attack China!

War may be a last resort and still be worth preparing for. It is no bad thing to amass troups and withdraw them when a peaceful agreement is struck. A great deal, the most important being human life, would be saved. If the massing of troops lets Saddam know we mean business without actually having to do business, then here's to the massing of troops against Saddam. Donald Rumsfield called France and Germany "old europe". Have any other American leaders? (I truly do not know.) The attack on Afghanistan was most definitely not vengence. As much as the U.S. had wanted to depose the existing Afghanistan government for a long time (yes I know they aided them initially) the U.S. still gave Afghanistan more than ample opportunity to begin to hand over those responsible for the terrorist attacks and to dismantle the terrorist network it supported. The U.S. is doing much against China. It should do much more. That does not mean it should not take immediate action against Iraq, which is infinitely more possible than action against China. I believe Bush's speeches resemble not a war-bent fundamentalist, but a man who is either bluffing Iraq into compliance (yes, massing troops can be bluffing) or else a man who is determined that we have come to the last resort -- war -- and that more time for inspectors is not only needless but futile and extremely dangerous. There is no war-bentness in that, just a determination to face the facts. He may be wrong, but if so he is speaking from being misinformed, not from being a warmonger.

Since Bush Sr. abandoned them to their fate the last time the US was there, I don't think they will be very grateful for the bombs of Liberty and Justice destroying their households and taking their lives...

The U.S. was never "there" as in possession of Iraq. President Bush was attacked very much at that time like the current President Bush is being attacked right now. The last memorable major military campaign to the american public previous to the Gulf War was the Vietnam War. It was imperative that President Bush define a clear objective and declare a clear victory and end to the war for clear and approved reasons. That objective, victory, and the approved reasons were the liberation of Kuwait. He could go no further. You do remember international opinion of even the suggestion of coalition forces advancing further, do you not? Instead, a more patient, peaceful solution to the Saddam problem was sought over more than 10 years. Now the current President Bush is saying that time and circumstance have made the moment for concession or agression immediate. Saying he is not correct is much different than accusing him of dishonorable ulterior motives.

Neither do I. I agree with you. We hold differing views and debate them. If I wanted simply to do a bit of mud-slinging I wouldn't have taken the pains to read your post thoroughly and respond point for point with arguments and reasons.

Fabulous! Thank you for your point of view and your arguments and reasons. Although I don't believe that point-for-point argumentation necessarily indicates the absence of a mud-slinging agenda, I definitely am grateful that yours was not one.

[fryke]

Originally posted by jeb1138
That chopping off your head is not good for you to live longer is indisputable. Neither does it exclude the presence of absolute right and wrong. It is evil to kill another person for pleasure, for example. No philisophical supposition can convince the honest man otherwise. Good and bad are not subjective, they just take a whole lot more qualifiers than people are normally willing to attatch to them. Saying that absolute morality is non-existent is merely the concession that man cannot know everything in combination with the denial of deity. I concede the first and oppose the latter. Good and bad are unchanging and unchangeable. I know many disagree, but they are wrong.

Well, the problem is that you assume (!) that there is a clear definition of good and evil, and yet fail to see that the USA have been abusing the Middle East for years and decades, ignoring - or, if not ignoring, actually abusing - the goals and beliefs of the islamistic peoples. The USA fail to accept or even see that attacks on the USA (like 9-11) are signs that their attitude in the Middle East is wrong.

The problem is that there ISN'T a clear good and evil here. For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that

a) the USA are wrong, and
b) the Iraqi are wrong.

Good and evil may be clearly defined if you want it like that. But for me, *WAR* is in all cases evil. There is no good war. There is no good in war. War is evil, and if the US walk on a path of war, they belong to the side of Evil. (If you want it simple, you get it simple.)

[Ricky]

Originally posted by fryke
For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that

a) the USA are wrong, and
b) the Iraqi are wrong.

Amen.

May I add that war is wrong as well? There are no exceptions to this. Fryke makes this clear.

[dafuser]

Originally posted by fryke
Well, the problem is that you assume (!) that there is a clear definition of good and evil, and yet fail to see that the USA have been abusing the Middle East for years and decades, ignoring - or, if not ignoring, actually abusing - the goals and beliefs of the islamistic peoples. The USA fail to accept or even see that attacks on the USA (like 9-11) are signs that their attitude in the Middle East is wrong.

The problem is that there ISN'T a clear good and evil here. For an outsider like myself, it's very, very clear that

a) the USA are wrong, and
b) the Iraqi are wrong.

Good and evil may be clearly defined if you want it like that. But for me, *WAR* is in all cases evil. There is no good war. There is no good in war. War is evil, and if the US walk on a path of war, they belong to the side of Evil. (If you want it simple, you get it simple.)

It's lucky for you the USA doesn't see things as cut and dried as you do, otherwise you and the rest of Europe would be now be speaking German. Or do you think Hitler would of allowed you to stay neutral while he conquered the rest of the world because war is evil?

Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons history teaches us about giving in to dictators like Saddam. What happened when Europe tried to appease Hitler?

[toast]

Dafuser, what you wrote above makes no sense when applied to history after 1945, date of first nuclear deterrent use.

If you need more precise explanations, check what Samy Cohen means in his book "The Atomic Bomb, Strategy of Terror".

War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option.

Hence, your post is obsolete since 1946 . No offense, don't worry !