# No Goal, No Plan, George Bush is the Man!



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I found it really difficult to sit through that speech of Lies, is George really so stup[id to think all americans are as stupid as he is??? It was frightening to think that he believes in his strategy. Rule #1 of goal setting is to Write it down, I want to see the real goals of this, I know he has it written down, he is just playing dumb because he has his secret agenda, of Course. What I am really surprized at is the support GW has in Amreica... 47%, that's a lot of people, and they think Bush is advancing Freedom?? haha What is Next, War on Sharks??? Those Bull Sharks Clearly had ties to Al-Quida Terrorist cells!

Fight the Man!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

He mentioned the connection to 9/11 five times in a 28 minute speech about Iraq. If you say it enough times, it must be true - eh? Presidential credibility is apparently all about words and not facts. Integrity is not on the POTUS job description.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Didn't New York and Washington vote against Bush in the last election. That should tell the rest of the nation something. It says, "We were the one's attacked by real terrorists and we don't trust this man to lead us and neither should you."

Not in our name, and all that.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I would like to retract my use of the word stupid, I think that a better word would be Unaware. Problem is, I think George Bush is Quite aware!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

..y'know.... thousand words 'n all.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> is George really so stup[id to think all americans are as stupid as he is???!


Hello, they voted for him again didn't they! Nuf said!


----------



## absinthe (Jun 12, 2004)

I think stating that "they voted him in again" could be a bit contentious.
The computerized polling stations that they used in the last two elections were clearly shown to be faulty. Results could be changed by a local administrator of the polling station by accessing the software through a back door. No paper ballots were produced so even if you wanted to recount you could not. I wish I could remember the name of the documentary I saw that illustrated the system (I think it was on TVO). It was a very enlightening production and even taking bias into consideration it is hard to deny that the election results may have been tampered with.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

That being said, I know quite a feww Americans, and they ALL voted for Bush (25+ People).
I personally think it's a sad state of affairs, but thats Government for you!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDaddy said:


> That being said, I know quite a feww Americans, and they ALL voted for Bush (25+ People).
> I personally think it's a sad state of affairs, but thats Government for you!


Well it is not like they are being given a choice are they?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

End result is that no matter who is now in office...the Americans have no option but to finish the job. They have to crush the insurgency...settle the Palestinian question...ditch the corrupt governments that they support.

As all of you know, I absolutely *loathe* Bush but I believe that he's the only president on the horizon who is willing enough to stick it out in the long term.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

*Get over the anti-americanism already*

How tiresome it is to listen to people and their fantasies about Bush and their anti-American rhetoric, no less on this forum.

Perhaps the same people who complain about the war in Iraq could explain how they thought the sanctions were better--oh wait, they were against that too. All of it is so tired already.

No wonder the anti-war camp lost the argument. They had NO ARGUMENT. Only this nonsense about "secret agendas".

Well guess what? It doesn't matter, in the end, what the "secret agenda". It only matters whether the results of this agenda will be more positive or negative than the alternatives. The big failure was all the naysayers' inability to come up with an alternative.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> How tiresome it is to listen to people and their fantasies about Bush and their anti-American rhetoric, no less on this forum.
> 
> Perhaps the same people who complain about the war in Iraq could explain how they thought the sanctions were better--oh wait, they were against that too. All of it is so tired already.
> 
> ...


Alternative to what? It wasn't like Iraq was an impending threat, was it? Or did the Iraqi navy pull up the cheasapeake when we weren't looking. Lets not forget about the Iraqi heavy airlight capability... those Iraqi airborne troops were ready to pounce on washington weren't they.

Hey I tell you what, why not try and contribute to this debate with some semeblance of an argument next time.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Perhaps the same people who complain about the war in Iraq could explain how they thought the sanctions were better--oh wait, they were against that too. All of it is so tired already.


you may want to ask the families of the 1700+ dead US soldiers and 13,000+ (source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/) American wounded never mind how many thousands of dead and wounded Iraqi civialians
out of sight, out of mind, eh?

but of course if you invested in oil and US defence contractor stocks you're very pleased

edit: source of figures


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Well guess what? It doesn't matter, in the end, what the "secret agenda". It only matters whether the results of this agenda will be more positive or negative than the alternatives.


Summary - the end justifies the means. 

Preferred US foreign policy in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yanqui go home....get your own pending theocracy under control.

The attack on Iraq was and is indefensible and the long term stability of the region threatened severely and US reputation abroad perhaps damaged irrevocably.

Even the bulk of the US populace let alone the rest of the world does not approve of the course of action.

Shall we list the number of despotic regimes - including Saddam and Bin Laden - the US has supported and does support when it happens to feel it's in it's interest???
It's long and bloody.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Ah, so, just because the U.S. was allied with Saddam at one time--and arguably, for good reason, as all Western countries were b/c he was the enemy of the crazy Ayatollahs in Iran--this means they can't do anything about Saddam when he became a problem?

Saddam was a problem, to say he wasn't a problem is disingenuous. This was not a new war, this was the finishing of a war that should have been done in 1991. There was no new initiative here; the sanctions regime had failed, the inspections were a dog and pony show, and there was no reason not to take Saddam's word for his malign intentions.

Before you go and rant about Bush, you will have to consider: why did Bill Clinton also consider Iraq a threat? If there was no reason to believe Saddam had WMDs, why did Jacques Chirac give as one of his reasons for opposing the war that Saddam might unleash a WMD when backed into a corner?

Oh yes, you might also have a problem explaining another detail that doesn't fit into your paranoid theories: the biggest suppliers of arms to Saddam's regime in the past were not the United States. That honour goes to Russia, France and China, all of whom opposed this latest war. Check it out yourself, on the website of the Stockholm International Peace Institute, which is certainly no warmonger organization: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

And by the way, so the Saudis also opposed the war--after all, they loved the sanctions. It ensured oil supply would be restricted ad infinitum, and keep their prices up. So where is the logic in these lame Michael Moore theories?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oh and by the way, I have no more connection to the petroleum industry than anybody on this board has, so that's just a lame inference. Try some more original personal smears than that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Saddam was a problem, to say he wasn't a problem is disingenuous. This was not a new war, this was the finishing of a war that should have been done in 1991. There was no new initiative here; the sanctions regime had failed, the inspections were a dog and pony show, and there was no reason not to take Saddam's word for his malign intentions.


Saddam was no longer a problem according to General Franks...the man who masterminded the invasion of Iraq. According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack", pgs. 80-81, at a briefing on Jan. 17, 2002:

_Franks said up front that they and the intelligence people had done an assessment of the strength of the Iraqi military compared with 12 years ago before the Gulf War. Economic sanctions had slowed their equipment maintenance, Franks said, and prevented them from moderning their force, substantially dilutng their offensive capability.
The numbers: Pre-Desert Storm there were seven Republican Guard divisions, now six-a drop of 15 percent. The regular army had 27 divisions before and presently 17-a drop of 35 percent. The tactical aircraft had gone from 820 to 310-down 60 percent. Many Iraqi aircraft were sitting hulks because they had run out of spare parts. Surface-to-air missiles had gone from 100 to 60. The Iraqi navy had always been somewhat of a joke with 15 to 20 ships. It was now down to two or three._

Given the beating that the Iraqis had suffered during the Iran-Iraq war their forces were already relatively weak and even weaker after the Gulf War.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hi Planethoth, welcome to ehMac! 

I think its a mistake to take all criticism of US actions or even GWB as being anti-American. That is a game that the President has played for the past three plus years including his re-election campaign ("with us or against us"). Constructive criticism is a friendly and neigbourly thing to do. There are many, many Americans who are steadfastly against the invasion. Are they un-American?

The problem many Canadians have with te US policy towards Iraq is that the invasion was conducted under false pretenses that were known by the authorities to be false but were trotted out repeatedly. Upon third party demonstration of their abject error, the Bush and Blair administrations claimed the invasion was done on humanitarian grounds. That was never a reason given for the impetuous invasion at the time or for months afterwards. I don't think you'll find anyone who supports the horrific regime of Hussein but you'll have to pardon us when trying to justify the invasion and loss of life as the best approach to take. Even now, GWB links Iraq directly to Al-Qaeda and terrorism and finally even the US media are questioning this.

The sanctions were being worked around by corrupt officials (e.g. food for oil program which is why the food wasn't getting to the needy) and the UN weapons inspectors were being harrassed. This issues could have been corrected. However, the idea that spending $200 billion and thousands of lives to install a puppet regime is the best option is indefensible. Hans Blick repeatedly stated that there were no WMDs to find yet the timetable for invasion was struck months before the "deadline". This was not about terrorism or a rogue state (there are plenty of others that seemingly do not attract attention). The problem with terrorism is that the enemy is virtually invisible. This invasion was about "doing something" in a demonstrable way - "there are no buildings in Afghanistan to bomb" and the fiction that was contrived to justify it demonstrates how important facts were to the Bush and Blair governments.

I hope there is a peaceful end in sight. Things are not looking good but the insurgents do not have the support of even a small minority. Like all politicians, GWB did not plan for the consequences - to be fair, when you ignite a tank of gasolene, its difficult to predict when it'll burn out or if it'll spread. GWB has burned his global credibility (not that he cares) but iit will take magninimous gestures on both the part of the US and their allies to resolve their differences and give Iraq a real chance at stability.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Well said, used_to_be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How prescient was this in 2002??



> I. Update – Understanding the New Debate on Iraq
> 
> After being pushed far out on a limb regarding Iraq by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense Chairman Richard Perle, and other neoconservatives, the President is finally backing away from what some newspapers (i.e. Washington Post and Wall Street Journal) dubbed an “inevitable” war.
> 
> ...


In retrospect we KNOW just how much were lies and fabrication.
The question at this point is whether the American people have the will to hold those responsible to the appropriate consequences.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

With the election of the new iranian president, I think the US will realign their forces and leave Iraq soon.
All will understand that the US can't be fighting two wars at the same time.

The US never took revenge on the takeover of the US embassy in Teheran in 79. Learning that the new president could have been linked to it already raised some american brass eyebrows. 
And Iran has real potential for the atomic bomb: A dream come true: real wmd's!

The idea of leaving a quagmire of improvised, second choice fight for democracy in Irak to face a real threat in Iran will be very tempting, especially if this new fight can finally involve the US Air Force bombing power, leaving the US Army to rest at home but available if...

It is a sad state of affairs to replace a war with another but I think the US administration will choose the most popular one, will turn the world attention somewhere else and won't care at all if Irak suffers a bloody civil war.

Iran will soon become part of the axis of evil.
And it has black gold too, how convenient!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Iran will soon become part of the axis of evil.


Um - it already was.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Going in three million directions as an attempt to confuse the point. Let me summarize my answers to the bulk of this:

1. I would never say that criticism of the American gov't is anti-American. I didn't say that. But calling them stupid for voting for Bush sure is getting there.

2. Iraq was a problem. The problem was not that Iraq was going to invade the United States. The problem was Saddam was a hostile enemy who nearly everyone believed had some WMDs and was constantly violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire reached with the allied forces.

His threat was no longer military, per se. Saddam remained internally powerful and very wealthy, despite or because of the sanctions regime which had turned into a joke thanks to France and Russia.

It is known for a fact that Saddam housed, consorted with and aided several terrorists who were enemies of the United States and its interest, including the now-infamous al-Zarqawi--he escaped Afghanistan and found refuge in Iraq, thanks to Saddam. The Iraqi intelligence had friendly contacts with al Qaeda several times. King Abdullah of Jordan himself said recently that Jordan had tried to get Zarqawi extradited from Iraq before the war to no avail, for the terrorist attacks he had planned and coordinated in Jordan.

3. Oil matters. It is annoying for people to run around pretending it is so nefarious that oil enters the equation. Who says it isn't a good reason for war?? Oil is one of the most important resources on the planet and it is used to make not only fuel, but plastics, solvents, etc. Imagine Saddam would have succeeded in his Kuwait takeover-- he would have controlled more oil than the Saudis! The market price of oil is also a weapon, since it is a location-based resource that cannot be easily replaced. There is good reason for all of us to hope for cheap oil that is not monopolized by one or two players. So while it is not the only reason for war, it certainly isn't unjustifiable as one of them!

4. Posting whole blocks of press releases of activist groups is no way to debate anything. I don't care what EPIC says.

5. Talking about motives is useless. A motive is an internal condition. You have no clear way of verifying motives. Anyone can manipulate this and this connection and this detail to try to show a motive, but in reality it won't matter anyway. All that matter is the outcome. Which brings me to my point:

6. Was the status quo acceptable? I say no. There has never been "Stability" in the Middle East in recent history or ancient history. Stability was the previous goal of U.S. foreign policy--that's why they didn't take Saddam out in 1991 like they should have. It did not have good outcomes.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I think I retracted My "Stupid" comment, and replaced it with unaware, I have always been Mistrusting of Government "Secrets", Call me crazy, but I don't like to be Lied to, or Misinformed.... I feel for americans, they are being run by a Family of Criminals... but arn't we all!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Trusting government and politicians is beside the point--of course everyone should be skeptical! And also, be skeptical of what journalists and editors and activists say too--do they not have an agenda?

But, agendas are one thing, outcomes are another. People do not have to have pure motives to produce good outcomes, intentionally or not. Politicians do not have pure motives. They cannot. They are politicians. That is the reality.

Accepting this fact means accepting that motives are not a point of serious debate. This is precisely why the opposition to the war failed. Instead of advancing reasonable arguments, they went about screaming like idiots: "Bush is a criminal", "Bush lied, people died", "Bush = Hitler", "No Blood for Oil", etc.

The tenor and methods of debate, two years on now, still hasn't improved from that sorry state. That's sad.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Iraq was a problem in the Bush and Co mindset. To the rest of the planet to a lesser degree but neither the Brits nor the US given their previous history of meddling in the region had any business going into a sovereign nation without full UN approval.

You're not looking to first causes.

Why was/is the US a target??

Meddling repeatedly over decades and arming half the world including both Saddam and Bin Laden will reap it's rewards and has.

The fact that senior people IN THE BUSH ADMIN including notably Scowcroft and Powell had serious reservations AT THE TIME about the strategy and reasoning shows how weak the case was then and in hindsight they were far more correct in their assessment than the "hawks" is notable and actionable in my mind.

I notice it appears to be actionable in the minds of few legislators and US citizens as well.



> State Dems: Impeach Bush
> Cheney, Rumsfeld too
> 
> By David Callender
> ...


and certainly a good summary of the larger situation



> After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table.
> 
> *Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars.* All that is needed is for one Member of Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who bears personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration torture scandal. Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive United States governments that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a professor of law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it that way!


The world watches in AWE  ...........as nothing is done. 



> An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week found 52 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57 percent say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
> 
> A Zogby poll last week found 42 percent of Americans say that "if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.


What's it gonna take??


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Uh oh, the "first cause" argument... well if only the world was that simple that you could reduce it to, "Do x and you will get y"

Back on the planet Earth, who says the UN is good for anything?

If you are going to pretend to make laws, like the United Nations thinks it does with its "international law", then you will need the force to back it up. Without the power of coercion, law is simply a piece of paper.

The reality is that the UN is a joke. No one elected the UN. The General Assembly is made up of ambassadors who were appointed. It's so-called "jurists" are political appointees of member states. The idea that "international law" provides us a model for anything useful has long ago been exposed as a fraud. You can't have law without force, period. That is its essence.

States will act for any number of reasons, but they will not act against their own interests. It is stupid to criticize the United States for doing what every other state does, namely, trying to act in their perceived interests.

Hiding behind the United Nations is not only moronic, it is dangerous. It creates this false sense that conflicts can be solved by them, when in fact they have never found a solution to any conflict.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

By the way, what does the opinion of Wisconsin Democrats have to do with the argument? Who cares? Is it surprising that partisans of the opposing party are given to asinine rhetoric against Bush and his policies?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Going in three million directions as an attempt to confuse the point. Let me summarize my answers to the bulk of this:
> 
> 2. Iraq was a problem. The problem was not that Iraq was going to invade the United States. The problem was Saddam was a hostile enemy who nearly everyone believed had some WMDs and was constantly violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire reached with the allied forces.


Not true. What violations are you refering to?



planethoth said:


> His threat was no longer military, per se. Saddam remained internally powerful and very wealthy, despite or because of the sanctions regime which had turned into a joke thanks to France and Russia.


You convienently neglect to mention that the USA was one of the largest of the food for oil violators.



planethoth said:


> It is known for a fact that Saddam housed, consorted with and aided several terrorists who were enemies of the United States and its interest, including the now-infamous al-Zarqawi--he escaped Afghanistan and found refuge in Iraq, thanks to Saddam. The Iraqi intelligence had friendly contacts with al Qaeda several times. King Abdullah of Jordan himself said recently that Jordan had tried to get Zarqawi extradited from Iraq before the war to no avail, for the terrorist attacks he had planned and coordinated in Jordan.


This is completly false.



planethoth said:


> 6. Was the status quo acceptable? I say no. There has never been "Stability" in the Middle East in recent history or ancient history. Stability was the previous goal of U.S. foreign policy--that's why they didn't take Saddam out in 1991 like they should have. It did not have good outcomes.


This doesn't follow. How is Iraq and / or the middle east better off with a fierce civil war?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Back on the planet Earth, who says the UN is good for anything?
> 
> If you are going to pretend to make laws, like the United Nations thinks it does with its "international law", then you will need the force to back it up. Without the power of coercion, law is simply a piece of paper.
> 
> ...


The UN has been made impotent by the US. As an American I am ashamed at the US's unwillingness to follow international law that we have agreed to. I am even more ashamed at our failure to sign on to the internatioal courts, anti landmine treaties and our dissregard for the anti-torture convention. To site the UN's inability to enforce international law as a reason to dissregard the UN is to reward those who impede and break international law (ie. the US).
What is moronic is attacking the UN and international law when we need them most. 
The only "fraud" I see is the BS that the Bush and Blair administrations heaped on their own people to get them into a war that is unlawful, immoral, costly and dangerous.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

planethoth said:


> 2. Iraq was a problem. The problem was not that Iraq was going to invade the United States. The problem was Saddam was a hostile enemy who nearly everyone believed had some WMDs and was constantly violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire reached with the allied forces.
> 
> His threat was no longer military, per se. Saddam remained internally powerful and very wealthy, despite or because of the sanctions regime which had turned into a joke thanks to France and Russia.
> 
> ...


So you really think $200 billion was a good investment for trying to kill al-Zarqawi - who is still on the run, along with bin Laden??? Methinks the arguments for the invasion are getting as weak as a used tea bag. The problem with everyone who thought Iraq had WMDs is that both their surnames all began with B - except for Blix 

It is one thing to want stability, it is quite another to expect that stability can be built out of M16s, body bags and occupation forces. Every insurgent that blows himself up killing innocent Iraqis seems to recruit 10 more to his cause. How insane is that?

The Marshall Plan was American imagination at its best. What we are currently seeing in Iraq is a compromised US foreign policy that cannot finish the job it started yet cannot leave until it does. The real losers continue to be the Iraqi people.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Martman: I am talking about the repeated failure to account for all the weapons he had reported having earlier, and allowing unimpeded access for weapons inspectors. He did not. There were 17 resolutions in the UNSC to testify to this point. Is 17 enough for you, or would you keep arguing ad infinitum about the need for 18, 19, 20, maybe 200 resolutions?

US was one of the biggest sanctions violators? I'd love to see the evidence.

Also, it sure seems ignorant to dismiss conflicting evidence as completely false, no? Go ahead, Google what I said. Here's a starting point for you: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp

Sorry, there is no "civil war" in Iraq. People should consider their words before they run their mouth with big rhetoric. Under the status quo, Iraqis were bankrupted and Saddam made more powerful. There was definitely a moral argument for changing this status quo.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

So, let's get this all straight. The conclusion that I am getting from planethoth is that:

A. Instability in the Middle East is good.
B. Plundering other countries of their natural resources is good if it serves an economic goal such as competition in the marketplace.
C. All objections can be dismissed as being irrelevant.
D. All politicans are crooks.
E. The ends justify the means.
F. Power comes out of the barrel of the gun.

I thought that I was cynical but, wow, you take the cake! Hey, care to join me in a venture to hire some mercs to invade, move (or kill) some irrelevant black squatters and stripmine the Congo?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Martman: I am talking about the repeated failure to account for all the weapons he had reported having earlier, and allowing unimpeded access for weapons inspectors. He did not.


Uhh...right before the U.S. invasion the inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. because they could not guarantee their safety. Saddam was willing to go to almost any length by that time to save his dictatorship but the U.S. wanted nothing more than total "regime change".


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

It is laughable to blame the U.S. for every Islamofascist nutcase that blows himself up in a crowd. Yes, I am sure they want this, this is all part of the "criminal Bush" plot against Iraq. Maybe it is time to consider just how widespread the lunatic Islamic supremacist mindset is across the world and in particular in the Middle East. We let it fester, occasionally even giving it money. It was time to confront it. And don't say Saddam was a secularist who had no connections to the Islamists, b/c that's false. This is the same guy who was building the largest mosque in the world, to be called, "Saddam Mosque" and furthermore had "Allahu Akbar" added to the Iraqi flag. He didn't need to be a "true Muslim", whatever that is, he just had to have the same interests.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> So, let's get this all straight. The conclusion that I am getting from planethoth is that:
> 
> A. Instability in the Middle East is good.
> B. Plundering other countries of their natural resources is good if it serves an economic goal such as competition in the marketplace.
> ...


A. There was never "stability" in the Middle East.
B. A resource that can affect the entire world economy is a legitimate point of concern and possibly even war. "Plunder" has nothing to do with it.
C. Come on, don't be cute.
D. Politicians aggregate interests and they are not disinterested. That is different than saying crooks.
E. I never said ends justify means, that's a distortion of what i said. I said that you could not reliably ascertain motives, so it is ridiculous to debate them.
F. If you like, frame it like that. Ultimately, law needs to be backed up by force. If you don't pay your taxes, Ottawa will seize your property and put u in jail. Period. Law is backed by force.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Uhh...right before the U.S. invasion the inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. because they could not guarantee their safety. Saddam was willing to go to almost any length by that time to save his dictatorship but the U.S. wanted nothing more than total "regime change".


Were you on holidays for 12 years, or what? You know very well that Saddam bluffed until the end. He did not account for the weapons. The U.S. only advised the inspectorsto leave at the end. Is 12 years enough for you? How many more years would you have given him? In my opinion, better to settle it once and for all.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Martman: I am talking about the repeated failure to account for all the weapons he had reported having earlier, and allowing unimpeded access for weapons inspectors. He did not. There were 17 resolutions in the UNSC to testify to this point. Is 17 enough for you, or would you keep arguing ad infinitum about the need for 18, 19, 20, maybe 200 resolutions?


The inspaections were underway. When it was becomming clear that there were no WMDs the US recalled the iinspectors and and invaded.



planethoth said:


> US was one of the biggest sanctions violators? I'd love to see the evidence.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html


> US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
> 
> Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
> 
> ...


There is your evidence. Do you live under a rock?
If you really care about this story how did you manage to miss this? Maybe you only watch FOX news?




planethoth said:


> Sorry, there is no "civil war" in Iraq.


Not yet....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Were you on holidays for 12 years, or what? You know very well that Saddam bluffed until the end. He did not account for the weapons. The U.S. only advised the inspectorsto leave at the end. Is 12 years enough for you? How many more years would you have given him? In my opinion, better to settle it once and for all.



THE WEAPONS WERE NOT THERE!
IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO INVADE A COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE WEAPONS! IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA!

Remember that Colin Powel and Condoleeza Rice both said Sadaam was not a threat.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm


> >>> During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.
> 
> In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
> 
> ...


Think I'm lying? here is the video:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Law is backed by force.


Law is also engaged with due process.

Cops are not prosecutors nor judges nor jailers for good reason.

I really have no problem with the US being the world cop. Their military ability is admirable where a military solution is required and would love to see them supply the UN with the military force needed to undertake UN sanctioned interventions.
They are patently NOT nation builders nor peacekeepers.

The problem arises in unilateral actions against a sovereign nation that did not attack them and in fact whose leader they armed and supported.
Failure to respect international laws and treaties of all sorts.

Be a cop, or a judge, or a prosecutor but not all three at once as Bush and Co would.
SHOW other sovereign nations you intend to abide by international laws and treaties consistently instead of "when convenient."
Quit interfering covertly or overtly in other nation's affairs and supporting patently dictatorial and oppressive regimes when it's convenient ( Pakistan and a long list of others )

The US is NOT a good world citizen in those terms and like a corrupt cop has lost the respect of the world community.

Go home, lead by example, support global initiatives like the Landmine treaty and World Court and Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and instead of being the world's supplier of arms and worst supplier of aid of the first world nations....stop supplying arms and start living up to aid levels and support for world bodies.

Then maybe.......


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Were you on holidays for 12 years, or what? You know very well that Saddam bluffed until the end. He did not account for the weapons. The U.S. only advised the inspectorsto leave at the end. Is 12 years enough for you? How many more years would you have given him? In my opinion, better to settle it once and for all.


{sarcasm}Oh yes it is definatly better to kill thousands of US and coalition soldiers and upwards of a hundred thousand Iraqi civillians because Sadaam couldn't afford to let his enemies (Iran) know he didn't have any WMDs. This is such an equitable solution!{/sarcasm}

That didn't even take into account all the injured people US and Iraqi.

I fail to see why you think this was a good solution unless you don't think Iraqis are as important as Americans.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> unless you don't think Iraqis are as important as Americans.


800 or 850 to 1 or is the "acceptable" ratio I believe.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While I have not, and likely will not, visit the US this summer, I have had the pleasure of meeting several US couples at campgrounds here in Alberta.

For the record, I have noticed a distinct difference in how those Americans see there own country compared to two years ago when I was down there.

Gone is any arrogance and it is replaced with bewilderment. They don't like Bush and they don't like what is going on in Iraq. More and more of them are coming to realize what their government did was wrong and openly admit that is so.

Most often heard quote at a campground a few days back was, "sure wish we could be more like you folks. No wars and a peaceful life with rights for all."

One day the majority of US voters are going to come around to our way of thinking.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I hope you are correct SINC. It is very hard for me as an American to stomach the curent trend in the USA. We have become a nation of cowards quaking in fear at the mere mention of terrorists even though terrorism is as American as Apple pie. We are so paranoid about foreign terrorists that we have forgotten that domestic terrorists are a bigger problem. (Anthrax, Army of God, Unabomber, ect.) We are lining up to give up our rights to fight the Binladden boogey man even though no one has demonstrated that there is any use to the anti-terrorists forces in these measures. 
I do see the begginings of change. I hope it is not too little too late.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The US is in an odd "civil war" on a variety of fronts and the unfortunate truth is the conflict spills over on to the rest of the planet.

I'm encouraged to see states moving on individually but I could not imagine the kind of wrenching "worldview" change that is needed so that US views are more closely aligned with the rest of the first world.

Germany and Japan had to go through it, Russia and to some degree Britain still is and there are even "nationalist" issues arising in Europe DESPITE the EU.

I really thought Vietnam was a watershed but it appears there was not enough forced navel gazing to embed a distaste for foreign adventuring deeply into the American psyche.

I do feel sympathy especially for the great number of Americans who are really working poor due to health and wage policies.
I find it so ironic that those most damaged by Republican policies - just as they were in the 20s and it's aftermath........continue to support Bush on "family values".

Sinc it was similarly interesting to hear on CBC the other day an American author express his dismay on the "direction" the US was going.
It was clear he was saddened.......it came across both somewhat apologetic and with sincere regret over what should be/could be.

Big poll here worldwide.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/23/news/pew.php



> Still, among traditional American allies, only Britain and Canada remained positive in their overall views of the country. And in many countries the unpopularity of President George W. Bush remained a salient factor.
> In Britain, Canada and France, about three-quarters of respondents said Bush's re-election had made them feel less favorable toward the United States. Canadians were the people most likely to view Americans as rude and violent.
> 
> Americans appeared quite aware of their image problem. Only 1 in 4 thought the country was well-liked abroad.


Divergent paths.........


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}Oh yes it is definatly better to kill thousands of US and coalition soldiers and upwards of a hundred thousand Iraqi civillians because Sadaam couldn't afford to let his enemies (Iran) know he didn't have any WMDs. This is such an equitable solution!{/sarcasm}
> 
> That didn't even take into account all the injured people US and Iraqi.
> 
> I fail to see why you think this was a good solution unless you don't think Iraqis are as important as Americans.


Oh yes, i like how you pull that hundred thousand civilians killed line. Except, there is no empirical evidence for that number, so don't use it please, it insults my intelligence to be patronized with fairy tale factoids.

I don't know whether it will end up being a good solution in the end or not. That isn't my point, my point is that it is better than the status quo was. I don't have the ability to predict the future, do you?

As for anecdotes about Americans, who cares? I didn't tell you what my Iraqi friends or American cousins think about the war, because it doesn't mean anything. Some Americans are for the war, others not. So what?

For the record, I would not prefer the Americans to support the "World Court", for example. The World Court is a kangaroo court whose members are representatives of states, not any real legal system. And as for the Landmines and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties, why would anyone be so certain that those are good things? Sounding nice doesn't make it good.

The U.S. should not be world cop, I didn't say they should. But they rightfully act in their interests, as every state does. Sometimes the outcomes are good, bad, or neutral. But they are no worse than others, and I would argue they are overall better than most.

But that doesn't matter... what matters is the bad arguments put forth to oppose the war... most people here, like most of the opposition, rely on emotional rhetoric, calling names, attributing malign motives, etc. Anyone who goes and claims Saddam and bin Laden and Zarqawi and guys like this aren't part of a serious problem that must be confronted--"boogey men"--are people with no argument worth the mention.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Please no polls. Unless you think what the majority at any given time thinks is the right answer to everything.

I could care less what people in France think, why do you?

Appeals to polls is a cop-out. Of all the reasons for supporting something, I would say appeals to the majority would rank pretty far down there.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

BTW, 12 years and 17 UNSC resolutions are due process enough, no? I tell you, the Canadian government would not give you 12 years to pay your taxes owed before they took action! If you are going to have a rule, you back it up, or else make a mockery of yourself.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You talk about bad arguments - you never ONCE mention the root causes of terrorism and WHY America specifically was attacked. Just bad luck???......bull****.

If you can't see why a Landmine ban is a positive action by the world community then you are completely blinkered......'pears that way anyway.

You flail around looking for an excuse for a war that is fundamentally inexcusable...and the US image abroad is bearing the brunt of that and Bush at home is bearing the political fallout......and I would hope ultimately the removal from office by impeachment he so richly deserves.

The world would applaud loudly.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> A. There was never "stability" in the Middle East.
> B. A resource that can affect the entire world economy is a legitimate point of concern and possibly even war. "Plunder" has nothing to do with it.
> C. Come on, don't be cute.
> D. Politicians aggregate interests and they are not disinterested. That is different than saying crooks.
> ...


Hey, all of these conclusions are legitimate and can be backed up by what you have said in prior posts.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, i like how you pull that hundred thousand civilians killed line. Except, there is no empirical evidence for that number, so don't use it please, it insults my intelligence to be patronized with fairy tale factoids.


Yet, oddly enough, you yourself use "fairy tale factoids". 

BTW, the U.S. ordered the medical services in Baghdad last year to discontinue counting civilian casualties which is why no one has a reliable number. But, if you have a more reliable number then put it out.



planethoth said:


> As for anecdotes about Americans, who cares? I didn't tell you what my Iraqi friends or American cousins think about the war, because it doesn't mean anything. Some Americans are for the war, others not. So what?


This proves my conclusion "c." doesn't it? 



planethoth said:


> For the record, I would not prefer the Americans to support the "World Court", for example. The World Court is a kangaroo court whose members are representatives of states, not any real legal system.


LOL! I guess if it was run by the U.S. it would not be a kangaroo court right?



planethoth said:


> And as for the Landmines and Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties, why would anyone be so certain that those are good things? Sounding nice doesn't make it good.


Eliminating mines is not a good thing?
Eliminating nukes is not a good thing? Interesting you should say that given that the U.S. went into Iraq on the pretense of eliminating WMDs. I guess you are probably right...it may sound nice but it's not a good thing.
I love the way you twist and turn and tie yourself up in contradictory knots.



planethoth said:


> are people with no argument worth the mention.


Conclusion "c." I believe.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc, you revealed the real argument you wanted to make, the "root causes" one. Apparently, Americans and Westerners in general are supposed to accept that everything we have done is bad and therefore justifies terrorism by Islamofascist nutcases. Because, you know, Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers were so "oppressed" by U.S. foreign policy.

But it has nothing to do with the Islamic "jihad" concept, right?? After all, jihad is only one of the central obligations in Islam! So pay no attention to that ideology; it must only be the American infidels and their bad government policies that cause it. Right.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Please no polls. Unless you think what the majority at any given time thinks is the right answer to everything.


Yes, you'd think that the majority of U.S. voters would have learned something by now. 



planethoth said:


> I could care less what people in France think, why do you?


Conclusion "c." yet again!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Where is the contradictory knots? If I contradicted myself once, I would love to know where! Also, what facts have I made up? Please point it out!

Who said I think the U.S. should run a world court?? I didn't, so please don't attribute that to me. I think the concept of a World Court is a joke. It has no reasonable chance of adjudicating disputes fairly.

Landmines and nukes--bad! Well that is one sophisticated analysis! Surely, we must all agree or else we are evil! There could never be, say, any reason to oppose any agreements based on the DETAILS, as opposed to the TITLES, now, could there?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> is the right answer to everything.


The alternative being that the US has the "right answer" to everything.

IF the UN had sanctioned the US to use force as it did in the first gulf war this argument would be moot.

Instead Shrub the vigilante "decided" on his own so no - not due process and it's clear from the reading the UN was simply an impediment and Powell had to battle hard even to make the approach that they did.

Bush and Co decided on their own....period...full stop and bear full responsibility both to their electorate and the world community.

This was "in process" very early on.

It's familiar turf.....I'm about half way through Woodward's book on the subject.



> Woodward book says Bush secretly ordered Iraq war plan
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team


Enlightening reading.....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-16-woodward-book_x.htm

No due process, vigilante action at it's worst for the world.

Even Vicente Fox - sooooooo dependent on US goodwill for his economy could not stomach it. He KNEW what unilateral foreign intervention was all about. His nation had been at the receiving end a few times.

Bush and Cheney made the decision, it's up to them to bear the consequences and stop trying to pussyfoot about.......well it's all okay ....isn't it??? 

It's up to the US populace to demand an accounting.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The alternative being that the US has the "right answer" to everything.
> 
> IF the UN had sanctioned the US to use force as it did in the first gulf war this argument would be moot.
> 
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Where is the contradictory knots? If I contradicted myself once, I would love to know where!


Your arguments are contradictory...read our posts carefully.



planethoth said:


> Also, what facts have I made up? Please point it out!


No one ever said that you made up any facts just that the facts that you use to support your arguments are incorrect or false.



planethoth said:


> Who said I think the U.S. should run a world court?? I didn't, so please don't attribute that to me. I think the concept of a World Court is a joke. It has no reasonable chance of adjudicating disputes fairly.


Would you accept a World Court run by the U.S.? Or, if the U.S. were a signatory to the World Court, would you still say that it's a kangaroo court?



planethoth said:


> Landmines and nukes--bad! Well that is one sophisticated analysis! Surely, we must all agree or else we are evil! There could never be, say, any reason to oppose any agreements based on the DETAILS, as opposed to the TITLES, now, could there?


What's so difficult to understand? Point out the flaws please in banning landmines and nukes.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I am sad for you if you really believe the United Nations saying so gives anything legitimacy. I won't assume you are that naive, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.


Right on! Unless the UN is able to nuke any country it wants then it's an illegitimate bunch of wusses! Legitimacy flows out of the barrel of the gun. 

I'll be looking to invest in companies that make jackboots...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I don't want to get into three totally separate arguments that have little to do with Iraq, but I will indulge you:

1. No, I would not accept the authority of any World Court regardless of its signatories. Just as I refuse to accept the authority of an unelected, distant United Nations, I will not give any authority to its World Court.

2. Landmines Treaty--one possible exceptions very well might be that an army has the right to use defensive measures to protect its soldiers. Landmines are a defensive measure, regardless of their drawbacks.

3. Nukes--well, signing treaties is a great thing and all--if you care about the rules. But, just like gun control laws, everyone will follow the law EXCEPT the criminals. What is the point of such a treaty? It would merely be a false sense of security, which, in my opinion, is the greatest danger of all.

Again, I wish to point out that the World Court and Nuclear and Landmines treaties are a distraction from the point of whether the Iraq war was a wise policy or not. You brought those up, not me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Planetoth - the UN is ALL we have and is crippled by many factors the largest is the US failure to support it fully both in money and effect because it's afraid of being held to account for it's actions.

There is no law without agreement amongst those its governs and as long as the US stays out it's a pariah - plain and simple.

The US has not even shown itself able to abide by WTO and NAFTA rulings

And don't condescend, you haven't the knowledge or background to back it up as is very evident from your posts.

You bat about concepts like "rule of law" without having much notion of what it responsibilities and institutions required under "rule of law".

You say the UN gave due process then in the same breath say the UN is meaningless.

You can't have it both ways as much as you'd appear to like that.

This is NOT Harry Truman's America........an admirable power.
It's far more Teddy Roosevelt's.........cowboy boots and all.

••••

You don't get the connection with Land Mines and Nukes because you are blinkered - same with the world court.
You can choose to be one amongst many sovereign nations with a representative body or outside and a pariah as a result.

The path has been abundantly clear.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Let me make something else absolutely clear: there are good arguments against the policy of going to war in Iraq--too bad we didn't hear them!

The law of unintended consequences is the best argument AGAINST the war. It legitimately recognizes the limitations of government action. That could have been the one opponents used.

Alas, no. Instead we have "Bush is a criminal". Instead we have the ridiculous idea that the UN decides what is right. Instead we have insults about Americans. Instead we have ridiculously intricate attempts to prove bad intentions based on circumstantial or selective facts. Instead we have references to "jackboots", insinuations that everyone works only for the oil industry, everyone is a liar, etc. And perhaps worst of all, an attempt to provide good justification for some Islamofascists flying planes into buildings.

The problem is not that you disagree about the war. The problem is the toxic, emotional rhetoric.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I don't want to get into three totally separate arguments that have little to do with Iraq, but I will indulge you:


You indulge me? How dare you... 



planethoth said:


> 1. No, I would not accept the authority of any World Court regardless of its signatories. Just as I refuse to accept the authority of an unelected, distant United Nations, I will not give any authority to its World Court.


Ahhh...ok, so that's clear now.



planethoth said:


> 2. Landmines Treaty--one possible exceptions very well might be that an army has the right to use defensive measures to protect its soldiers. Landmines are a defensive measure, regardless of their drawbacks.


A defensive measure? You evidently have no clue...landmines can be used defensively but they can also be used in an offensive manner, for example, by a belligerent in order to deny avenues of egress and/or ingress.



planethoth said:


> 3. Nukes--well, signing treaties is a great thing and all--if you care about the rules.


That's not the point, banning nukes is a good thing and that is the point. Whether or not the treaty is enforced is the issue but the intent is good.



planethoth said:


> Again, I wish to point out that the World Court and Nuclear and Landmines treaties are a distraction from the point of whether the Iraq war was a wise policy or not. You brought those up, not me.


No, I did not bring those up. I suggest you read a bit more carefully...it was MacDoc in post #21.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You won't ever mention WHY the planes were flown into US buildings.

Talk about toxic - failure to address root cause is at the heart of it all.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Alas, no. Instead we have "Bush is a criminal". Instead we have the ridiculous idea that the UN decides what is right. Instead we have insults about Americans. Instead we have ridiculously intricate attempts to prove bad intentions based on circumstantial or selective facts. Instead we have references to "jackboots", insinuations that everyone works only for the oil industry, everyone is a liar, etc. And perhaps worst of all, an attempt to provide good justification for some Islamofascists flying planes into buildings.


Careful, generalizations such as this makes your arguments even easier to tear into and destroy.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Again, I will not be dragged into the separate issues. The Iraq war policy is the topic we were discussing.

MacDoc, you are relying on personal attacks now:

"And don't condescend, you haven't the knowledge or background to back it up as is very evident from your posts."

Evident to you! I am not calling into question your expertise or knowledge, so refrain from commenting on mine!

Yes, I did say the UN gave implicit due process, and I also said the UN is meaningless. Why? Because the UN can't back it up with force. Due process alone does not make law. So there was no contradiction there. The U.S. and Britain were the only ones willing to enforce the UN's law in this case!

But I also argue that "international law" is irrelevant--precisely because it cannot be backed up with force uniformly. Might as well not have it then.

By the way, without the United States there would be no UN. They provide over 60% of its operating budget and the land for it in NYC. I think they should shut it down tomorrow, but that's just me.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Again, I will not be dragged into the separate issues. The Iraq war policy is the topic we were discussing.


Given how poorly you did on those separate issues it might be a good idea to fight on one front. 



planethoth said:


> So there was no contradiction there. The U.S. and Britain were the only ones willing to enforce the UN's law in this case!


Hrmmm...what were the U.S. and Britain backing up specifically? Careful with your answer because I have read the UN resolutions (which means that I printed them out and read them through) that some people say justified the Iraqi invasion. The resolutions do not specifically say "go forth, invade and smite them dead".



planethoth said:


> But I also argue that "international law" is irrelevant--precisely because it cannot be backed up with force uniformly. Might as well not have it then.


I have noisy neighbours...the cops don't come or they ignore my calls. I guess I should burn out my neighbours then right?



planethoth said:


> By the way, without the United States there would be no UN. They provide over 60% of its operating budget and the land for it in NYC. I think they should shut it down tomorrow, but that's just me.


I think that they should move the UN to Toronto (or any other Canadian city)...it would be really difficult for the U.S. to invade us for our oil with the whole world on our doorstep.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Yes, I will address WHY planes were flown into buildings with non-combatants by 19 Islamofascists.

Because Osama bin Laden and his ilk are still pissed about 1492. That's right, the "Tragedy of Andulsia", where the Muslims were pushed out of Spain (the country they invaded, btw) by the armies of Ferdinand and Isabella. Obviously if Osama mentions this in his manifesto, we should take his word for it, no?

So someone who is still pissed about stuff that happened 500 years ago, would you call that a legitimate form of anger? Would you say that Osama, the child of a wealthy Saudi construction family, was particularly oppressed by this or that American policy? Naturally someone with this starting point of victimhood complex can find ANY reason to legitimize flying planes into buildings.

Would you be able to explain away the ideology of Islamism and possibly, the Quran itself, as a "root cause"? 

And more to the point, if they want to kill me, should I let them?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Have you actually read Bin Ladin's letter???
Very unlikely from your reply.

You also did not say "why the US in particular - can't be a 500 year old issue now can it?
And as for ancient issues - you seem to be doing legal battle about 10 commandments in your court houses..so the US is hardly "progressive" in with respect to "articles anciennes".

•••

BTW you say law must be backed by force......tell me what "force" binds the Great Lakes Water agreement between Canada and the US??

You might also ponder why the "Sovereign state of Texas, or Colorado etc aren't. What "force" backs the Ogallala aquifer agreement.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Agreements between countries are easy to make. But who will enforce them?

If the United States decided it was in its interests to violate this agreement, Canada would have no real way of preventing that, if it wasn't ultimately willing to use its military force to defend the point. So, theoretically, this agreement exists, but is it worth the paper it is printed on?

The option not to use force is also an exercise of power, since it is at the discretion of the powerful. I cannot say whether Canada would be willing to resort to force to ensure this agreement is adhered to. If it is, then I suppose you could say it has a semblance of law; if not, it exists only by goodwill and rational calculation of the United States.

The case of Texas and Colorado: well if they are willing to use the option of force to secede from the United States, then sure I guess they are sovereign in a sense. This was tried once, the Civil War, which the South lost (by force). The fact that the United States prevailed in the war over the Southern secessionists meant the Southern states had to submit to the authority of the federal power. No war, no law. Simple as that.

Why do you imply that I am an American? I was born and raised in Canada, not the U.S.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

BTW, yes, I did read bin laden's manifesto letter. Does it seem like a good argument to you?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Why, here is your root cause, from the mouth of bin Laden himself:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.""

"We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

There you go, root cause, jihad, jihad, jihad, forever jihad. This is what we will fight for the next 100 years.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth, both of your posts about Osama's intentions/motivations contradict one another. There are at least two motivations...to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia and the other is to resolve the Palestinian question.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And thirdly to tell Americans to go home and be safe.

Perhaps when you understand why there are no IRA bombs in London now you'll have a glimpse of first cause and the long road to resolution.
It's been 400+ years and only now is SOME resolution slowly and painfully occurring between Ireland, Northern Ireland and England.

Trade, aid and RESPECT.
Stop meddling. Then maybe...........

Will it bring about peace in the middle east - unlikely - they've been battling for millennia.
Will it bring some renewed respect for the US......YES........after a time.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Comparing bin Laden to the IRA! That's cute. Except one thing: The IRA didn't want a global war to bring about a pan-Islamic theocracy!

The troops are out of Saudi Arabia, and now? With the Islamist terrorists they will never have a shortage of things to be pissed about. There is no reason to listen to them, only good reason to kill them.

According to bin Laden, ANY territory that was once held by Muslims is forever Muslim! Hence, him and Zawahiri's lamentations about the "Tragedy of Al Andalus". You are fools if you do not look past your bleeding heart dogma into what these people actually think. When bin Laden says "Palestine" he means the Jews should leave the Middle East! He isn't asking for a Palestinian state--he is asking for a caliphate with a Muslim domination of the entire Middle East. Why do you refuse to admit this?

Well let me ask you people a question: did you know that the Arab Muslims in fact are not indigenous to Palestine? Yes, they were conquerors too, and then themselves were conquered by Turks.

How about the ruthless wars of conquest the Arab Muslims undertook on Spain, North Africa, Sudan? Do you really think Arabs are from Africa? Why don't they leave Sudan to the indigenous blacks?

You are blinkered by your ideology, one so crass that it is apologetic for the most reactionary terrorists who would certainly kill you without compunction if they thought it useful.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your concept of the forces of history reminds one of singularly variegated dog's breakfast.........the second time around.

Your only rational approach is Cheney's ....empires do what they want because they can....sovereignity be damned.

Don't toss in moral stances, freedom to the people and rule of law bull****.

There is no "implicit" in due process. You either have the UN's mission go ahead or not - they didn't.



> No war, no law. Simple as that


and that is a pretty good summary of your rather odd worldview.

As it turns out - fair play, cooperation and fair trade are built into our genes.



> In the world of capuchins grapes are luxury goods (and much preferable to cucumbers) So when one monkey was handed a grape in exchange for her token, the second was reluctant to hand hers over for a mere piece of cucumber. And if one received a grape without having to provide her token in exchange at all, the other either tossed her own token at the researcher or out of the chamber, or refused to ;accept the slice of cucumber Indeed, the mere presence of a grape in the other chamber (without an actual monkey to eat it) was enough to reduce resentment in a female capuchin.
> 
> The researches suggest that capuchin monkeys, like humans, are guided by social emotions, in the wild, they are a co-operative, groupliving species, Such *co-operation is likely to be stable only when each animal feels it is not being cheated. Feelings of righteous indignation, it seems, are not the preserve of people alone* Refusing a lesser reward completely makes these feelings abundantly clear to other members of the group. However, whether such a sense of fairness evolved independently in capuchins and humans, or whether it stems form the common ancestor that the species had 35 million years ago, is, as yet, an unanswered question.


Keep treating peoples in manner they perceive as unfair and it WILL beget violence, just as above.

What you seem unable to grasp and there is some evidence for a genetic basis to political views, is that agreements even on a large scale can be based not on force but on cooperation and mutual self interest even when the rewards are not 100% evenly split.



> This study demonstrates that capuchins cooperate even if it is obvious from the outset that only one of them, and which one, will be rewarded. The observed sharing increase after cooperation may rest on psychological mechanisms as complex as "gratitude" (Trivers 1971), or mental score-keeping of services. For example, it has been demonstrated that chimpanzees selectively share food with partners who groomed them hours ago (de Waal 1997b). Whether such memory-mediated exchange applies to capuchins remains a question, however.
> 
> A simpler explanation of our results might be so-called attitudinal reciprocity according to which monkeys mirror the predispositions of their partners, whether friendly or hostile (de Waal in press). The monkeys do not need to be precisely aware of the efforts of their partner or the amount of food that they have given or received, so long as the mirroring of attitude facilitates the sharing of pay-offs. In this view, a joint effort, and the attention and coordination this entails, may induce a positive attitude towards the partner expressed in mutual attraction and social tolerance. If this tolerance translates into food sharing, it provides an incentive for continued cooperation. In combination, these two mechanisms would function like payment for labor and labor for payment.


When the conditions of sharing are PERCEIVED to be unfair.......violence results.

We ARE primates, we share those traits.

Bin Laden's support arises out of hopeless rage. This is exactly what Bin laden and others exploit.



> But many signs point to the fact that the youth of the Third World will no longer tolerate living in circumstances that give them no hope for the future. From the young boys I met in the demobilization camps of Sierra Leone to the suicide bombers of Palestine and Chechnya, to the young terrorists who fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we can no longer afford to ignore them. We have to take concrete steps to remove the causes of their rage, or we have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
> 
> The global village is deteriorating at a rapid pace, and in the children of the world the result is rage. It is the rage I saw in the eyes of the teenage Interahamwe militia men in Rwanda, it is the rage I sensed in the hearts of the children of Sierra Leone, it is the rage I felt in crowds of ordinary civilians in Rwanda,and it is the rage that resulted in Sept 11.
> 
> ...


Colonial powers historically and currently the US in particular ( tho not alone by any means ) are perceived to be exploitative as opposed to being cooperative.( which Canada by and large is ).

Rage results and unlike the capucins tossing food or rocks......this particular ape species tends to more significant weaponry.

There ARE two approaches - one based on force and imperial imposition the other on example and cooperation and trust over time.

It IS a choice and one which the larger policies of the US and Canada diverge on often quite dramatically.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc, generally, I have no disagreement with your statement that mutual cooperation is in our genes. That's likely true--but why does it affect what i said?

Mutual cooperation does occur, spontaneously. And also, there are individuals for whatever reason who are disposed to violence!

A law can be enforced, for most or many, by pure voluntarism and their inclination to "play fair". This is something different than saying a law can rest on that ALONE.

At bottom, the rule of law means the state has the monopoly of force. Force is necessary when the rules as defined by it are violated. You can quibble about what the rules are, but you cannot claim that a Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden can be persuaded to follow rules voluntarily.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it does not on a macro scale at all .......only on a scale of individuals in breach of legal or sometimes social mores.
In that case modern societies have a framework of legislation, police, prosecution and defence none of which can be done without in a modern society to deal with "offenders".
In accepting this citizens acknowledge a limit to their personal rghts and freedoms.
Along with rights come responsibilities.

Until the US ( and others ) recognise the same requirement at the global level, accepts limits to its sovereignty as a result, just as a citizen must and a state within the US must, there will be no effective UN or world bodies.
Until it abides by AND IS SEEN TO ABIDE BY international treaties even those such as NAFTA and WTO then it WILL be seen as an unfair trader and untrustworthy.

There are two clear paths and in my mind and that of many around the world and many of it's own citizens - the US is on the wrong one.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No it does not on a macro scale at all .......only on a scale of individuals in breach of legal or sometimes social mores.
> In that case modern societies have a framework of legislation, police, prosecution and defence none of which can be done without in a modern society to deal with "offenders".
> In accepting this citizens acknowledge a limit to their personal rghts and freedoms.
> Along with rights come responsibilities.
> ...



I didn't "accept" any limits. I never signed anything, did you? Why is the UN good? I don't see anything desirable about the UN. Why must you assume we need it?

Not everything the U.S. does is great, and it certainly ain't all bad. So? What about Canada? Just because Canada is a weak country that has little other option doesn't make it morally righteous! Dispense with this idea that there is a "clear path". If there was a clear path, there would be no conflict or argument.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> There are two clear paths and in my mind and that of many around the world and many of it's own citizens - the US is on the wrong one.


Yep. Remember when the guys in white hats used to snarl self-righteously about "rogue states"? (What? They still do?)
Biggest rogue -state of 'em all? The USA. Does what the hell it wants when it wants and for whatever reason it wants. It's part of a roll-call of hellish behaviour towards other tribes, races, nations, as previously practised by the Romans, Genghis Khan and the British to name an un-illustrious few.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yep. Remember when the guys in white hats used to snarl self-righteously about "rogue states"? (What? They still do?)
> Biggest rogue -state of 'em all? The USA. Does what the hell it wants when it wants and for whatever reason it wants. It's part of a roll-call of hellish behaviour towards other tribes, races, nations, as previously practised by the Romans, Genghis Khan and the British to name an un-illustrious few.


Thanks, really illuminating. Except that the Romans were not like Genghis Khan and the British were not like either of them. Be intellectually honest or don't say things like that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PT or whatever your nick is - I'm not prepared to give you 101 lessons in how societies nation states develop and function under mutual agreements many of which are NOT written including with their citizens.

You're all over the place. Observation is not approbation.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sorry, let me correct the implication I made: no, I did not intend to say all agreements need to be written. But "social contract theory" is demonstrably false, I hope you won't rely on it. No one asked me whether I would like to submit to the Canadian state and their taxation powers, etc. I just have to comply, or else.

In this sense, I could say that the Canadian state is oppressing me. You can't call it a "mutual agreement". That's completely false. If the state wants to give me voluntary, free choice to opt in or out, then we can talk about mutual agreement. I have no choice, or very little, since my choice involves only being forced to move to another country, and even then, I will only have the choice between accepting their "agreement" or going back to where I came from.

No need to condescend, as you often do. It is not becoming of you.


----------

