Will we go to war with Iraq?

[JackC]

Try to answer the hypothetical question. Can you do it? Yes you can! I know it because you seem to be able to babble on and on in a vain attempt to blame all bad things on Clinton and give credit for all good things to Ronald Reagan. You sticht may full some but I ain't buying any of it.

I look forward to your next response with great eagerness!

[fansince62]

JackC....give us a break. the original question was a puerile effort at being provocative/sarcastic. and you're surprised with the responses you receive? since i have seen little in anything you have posted in Tailgate that smacks of knowledge, facts or reason.......it's difficult to take you seriously........see ya!

oh....for the record...i did not vote for Bush in the last election. so you can drop that little piece of ad hominen attack you seem to so favor.

[Sarge]

Fansince62, as you said, JackC doesn't let minor details like facts, knowledge or reason to stand in his way. Most liberals don't. And JackC, I won't bother with your hypothetical questions, simply because your unwillingness to live in the real world renders you unable to interpret and face facts. Also, hypothetical questions and responses by their very nature can be twisted to fit either side of a debate.

I suspect you are feeling rather hemmed in at this moment. Art has effectively neutralized any arguements on economics, I have layed out the facts as far as the military downsizing/operations are concerned (to which I have seen no response from you). I'm more than happy to stick around and straighten you all out, but let's just deal with facts, shall we?

[Henry]

An October Suprise generally involves a bombing or a limited action of some sort, not war declarations. Let's not forget that an all out war has to be approved by Congress ... and a lot of Congressmen are Democrats. Makes the timing a bit tricky. From today's Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20262-2002Jul30.html

[JackC]

When it comes time to answer tough questions the right wingers here refuse to answer. They instead call the question or the person posing the question stupid. I don't know why I expected more from a group of people who think it's alright for a pot smoker to go to jail for 20 years but the Ken Lays of the world get slaps on the wrist.

I have yet to read an arguement from the right on this board that isn't filled with anything but insults and generalities. Anyone who doesn't believe as you do must surely be unpatriotic, stupid or both. What a sad side of the fence to be on.

Answer the question!

[fansince62]

we've been trying to politely tell you that the original, rhetorical question was assinine to begin with. vous etes un poseur - with nothing serious to say. seriously, go play somewhere else Jack..."I have neither the time, nor the inclination......."

[JackC]

Yet more ducking of questions by the confused Right Wing!

[Henry]

Ok Jack, I'll bite. Although I don't know how conservative I am seeing as I voted Democrat in the last 4 Presidential elections. Still, I'm pretty certain my views fall further to the right than yours.

I do disagree with the tone of your question. As I tried to explain before, it would be near impossible for a President to time a declaration of war to occur in a certain month for purely political reasons, because Congress has to approve of it, and with a Democratic Senate you aren't going to see a Republican President necessarily get what he wants when he wants it.

And if you are talking about a bombing campiagn or limited action of some sort, why then would Rumsfeld just yesterday come out and say that's not going to work? I suppose it's possible, but not likely.

[JackC]

Henry,

Thanks for the effort. That's not the question. It came up in a post further down in the thread. The question is:

"If by giving up freedom of speech and by giving the government unlimited search rights September 11th could have been avoided would you be in favor?"

Silence of the right wing lambs!

[fansince62]

since you asked.....you haven't posed any arguments either Jack. you asked a hypothetical question then blatantly suggested that the man responsible for millions of lives (and implicitly all his advisers) acts on the pretext of off-year congressional elections. the implications were very obvious: and unsupported I might add. then, when others react to the obvious provocation, you feign hurt mixed with superiority by labeling folks as right wing who have nothing to contribute but insults and cat-calls - in your opinion. essentially, your wag the dog, one sentence assertion: we will attack Iraq because Bush wants to keep/gain seats, what do you think?. no facts, no details, just idle speculation. and yes there have been reasoned responses to your hypothetical. i tried to point out that there are credible reasons based on the threat in Iraq as reported in the press - i.e., that the hypothetical is not the only explanation for a possible future event you obviously will not be comfortable with. even if the moons align and they occur at the same time, Jack, it is a fallacy in logic to assume a causal relationship. the burden is on you to produce some facts that substantiate that this is actually the substance of the planning that is going on at this very moment. you haven't done that.

[Henry]

Originally posted by JackC

Henry,

Thanks for the effort. That's not the question. It came up in a post further down in the thread. The question is:

"If by giving up freedom of speech and by giving the government unlimited search rights September 11th could have been avoided would you be in favor?"

Silence of the right wing lambs!

Ah, too many questions at once. I will, against my better judgement, attempt to answer this one as well.

In peacetime, no I would not be willing to give up our freedoms in order to prevent some hypothetical attack that may or may not occur.

In wartime, I have no problem with our government suspending certain freedoms in order to keep our citizens secure from further attack against known agressors. History as shown democracies are capable of such actions without jeopardizing long term rights. Both the U.S. and Britain (especially Britain) suspended some or all rights of their citizens during World War II, and managed to return to normalcy fairly easily.

Now, this War against Terrorism is not the same kind of war as those we have fought before, so I suppose you have a point that it is folly to simply give up our rights without understanding the nature and scope of our enemy, but by the same token I feel it is equal folly to not even consider more, limited, governmental control for a limited amount of time in order to deal with an organization that has clearly declared war on our county.

I hope that at least partially answers your question.

[fansince62]

your other question is so extreme as to not merit a response. it's a silly question , Jack, that adds nothing to the coversation. now, I throw back to you what tradeoffs in liberties would you be prepared to accept in order to save the lives of 2000+ of your fellow citizens. better yet, what tradeoffs would you be prepared to make to save your own life?

[RiggoDrill]

I don't think it's a "liberal" position to oppose a war on Iraq. If anything it's conservative ... of lives.

It's "liberal" to go put thousands of our sons at risk for a "regime change" in Iraq.

"Weapons of mass destruction" that hypothetically might be used are not a justification, otherwise we'd be bombing tons of other countries too. Besides, we have enough satellites, flyovers and intelligence to bomb strongholds, silos and factories without invading Baghdad.

Get it straight: we're invading to CHANGE THE REGIME. Why? Because of oil contracts. Because we don't want opposition in the region.

If all the wasteful people driving 8-cylinder cars want to go fight for their oil, so be it. Better yet, let Cheney and Bush send their kids.

It's foolish to believe that any belligerent stance of our government is in our best interest. That sort of fear-based acquiescence and bandwagoning is the fastest route to a fascist state.

[The Evil Genius]

it would be near impossible for a President to time a declaration of war to occur in a certain month for purely political reasons, because Congress has to approve of it, and with a Democratic Senate you aren't going to see a Republican President necessarily get what he wants when he wants it.

This is nearly true. But, if I remember correctly, the Executive Office has a 90 day War Powers Act that allows the Pres. to engage the US in military conflict w/out the consent of Congress.

The ability to use this to sway political vote though, I would think, would be beyond the thinking of any president. Now, if that president had a political sponsored thinktank that came up with that idea...hmmm..

Still, there is a lot of risk involved, especially if the US engages in combat and the media picks up on a lot of US casualties. The political ramifications of such idea would be devastating...although I am sure they could always just blame Congress for not giving them the proper support.

That seems to be the thing nowadays - blaming Congress.

[fansince62]

riggo....you're so far off the mark as to belie credibility. oil is a factor - not the prime mover. forget the liberal/conservative jargon...this is a distractor anyway, no matter how you choose to play with the semantics. your logic that if the threat itself is the prime mover then we should be attacking all nations/parties harboring weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous: it reduces a complicated problem to a simplistic syllogism. it is a starting point.......however, there are matters of intent, demonstrated willingness to use the weapons, international controls, intelligence....everything, in short, that you apparently have no knowledge about. now, as a citizen in a democracy, you are free debate the ends and applications of force. you are free to vette your value laden criticisms against what you perceive to be a "wrongful" allocation of resources into SUVs and other consumer preffered items. but, you do have a responsibility to be informed - even the federalist papers presumed an informed body politic. none of you - jack and others - who are opposed to any action against Iraq have answered some fundamental questions. what is the threat? how serious is it? and , the kicker, what should be done? there has been a mindless littany of finger pointing (e.g., the president wants this to win votes; this is part of a cabal to succor evil oil companies, and on). none of this gets to the heart of the matter: what do you do about a regime that may have weapons of mass destruction? that may be prepared to use them? that may be sponsoring slaughter in other parts of the world as we speak? and while we're at it.........what exactly is your role? beyond posturing, what are you doing during this time of crisis? i don't care much what form it takes (be it join the military, national guard, fire department, health care community for crisis response, etc). but it is germane to ask what those who are standing on the sidelines arguiing ends are themselves doing to join the fight: don't be confused about this one - there is a very real threat and it exists globally. it has reached our shores already. if you're not in the fight....participating in any way beyond paying taxes and taking potshots, have the smarts to stand down for a bit until others can eliminate the threat. think of it as a cancer: you can be the medicine, the doctor, the nurse, the delivery boy who brings the medicine, etc.; or, you can stand on the sidewalk but remain clear of the support force attempting to defeat the cancer.

[JackC]

Henry,

Thanks for answering the question. You are alright in my book. As for you answer I simply can not agree. We can not let the government "suspend" rights as they see fit during times of war. Who decides its a "time of war"? Why it's the government. Danger Will Robinson!

Fansince62,

You fear to answer a question which was designed to find out how far some right wingers are willing to go in the name of security. Your (and others) inability to see any other side of any issue is a flaw of yours not mine.

[The Evil Genius]

Just to expand on the War Powers of the President....

Th War Powers Resolution provides that the President is not allowed to send U.S. troops into combat unless Congress specifically gives advance approval; the only exception is if the President is responding to a national emergency created by an attack on U.S. territory or on U.S. armed forces. Even then, the President must report to Congress immediately and then "terminate any use" of the troops within 60 days unless Congress specifically approves of further action.

Our history has seen the US engaged in over 200 military conflicts, but only 7 times has War been officially declared by Congress. The last time was WWII.

[Romo]

EG,

Off-topic but do you know parchance what those 7 times were?

Im only coming up with 6.

WW2, WW1, Spanish-American War, Civil War, Mexican-American War, War of 1812. Im not counting the revolutionary war so that may be where im missing one. I guess I just figured congress wasnt officially established at that time.

[The Evil Genius]

Actually I dont know - I just remember that stat from something I read (so if could be wrong).

Incidentally, I dont think Congress declared War during the Civil War.

[fansince62]

jackc....i have no fears (trust me on that one). and i recall posing several questions to you that have been deftly sidestepped. and your use of the term term "right wing" in the obvious pejorative manner you intend makes you no better than the bigots you so bemoan. i take it that anyone who uses pointed language, disagrees with you, or demands a little more detail and argument from you is ipso facto "right wing". you don't even practice what you preach there little buddy.

just so we're clear, my return of service as expressed above follows: the offered situation was one of absolutes: sacrifice all freedom of speeach and other freedoms to ensure security. my point was that this was a ridiculous zero sum sort of hyptothetical that has little value. i then challenged you to address what tradeoffs you would be willing to make at the margin to save others lives or your own: a more practical sort of consideration. where should the first derivative fall for security vs freedoms? you adroitly refused to answer. i would assert that this sort of question is important to answer. in as much as you obviously don't trust the government, it's equally important for many of us to wonder whether you should be trusted during a crisis. your value/fear structure seems pretty clear. have I moved to a personal realm? yes...but you opened the door.

i don't know any other way to express the thought that you haven't answered the very question you posed. all you have said is that you would brook no sacrifices whatsoever because you fear your own government more than some radical nut who is blowing up your friends in NYC. who really is the fascist here, JackC?????? :puke:

i personally am more in line with henry. there are practical sacrifices one makes when threatened. these sorts of things happen every day n our daily lives (e.g., screaming fire in a movie theatre). so, please, give us something a little more meaty to bite into.....

[Henry]

Well EG, I do know that Congress had to approve the use of force in The Gulf War, whether or not there was a formal declaration.

And Jack, yes I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this. One last thing, though:

Who decides its a "time of war"? Why it's the government. Danger Will Robinson!

I would say it's the folks launching unprovoked attacks on American soil, something along the line of flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of civilians, who decide we are at war.

[The Evil Genius]

Taken from a Republican Study Committee info item...

Information Regarding Declarations of War

Official Declarations of War and Other Congressionally Authorized

Military Engagements:

Official Declarations of War:

The United States formally has declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times. Each time the declaration of war was requested by the President either in writing or in person before a Joint Session of Congress.

Great Britain June 18, 1812

Mexico May 13, 1846

Spain April 25, 1898

World War I – Germany April 6, 1917

World War I – Austria-Hungary December 7, 1917

World War II – Japan December 8, 1941

World War II – Germany December 11, 1941

World War II – Italy December 11, 1941

World War II – Bulgaria June 5, 1942

World War II – Hungary June 5, 1942

World War II -- Rumania June 5, 1942

Congressionally Authorized Military Engagements:

In several instances in both the 19th and 20th Centuries the U.S. engaged in extended military engagements that while not formally declared wars, were authorized by Congress in some form short of a formal declaration of war. In some inst ances action was prompted by attacks on U.S. interests.

Undeclared Naval War with France 1798-1800

First Barbary War (Against Barbary Pirates) 1801-1805

Second Barbary War (Against Barbary Pirates) 1815

Africa (Raid of Slave Traffic) 1820-1823

Paraguay (Seek Redress for an Attack on a Naval Vessel) 1859

Lebanon (Protect Government Against an Insurrection) 1958

Vietnam War 1964-1973

Lebanon (Restoration of Lebanese Government) 1982

Gulf War 1991

Typical Construction of a Declaration of War:

All eight of the declarations of war issued during the 20th Century contained identicallanguage stating that the President is:

“authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against [the ‘Government’ of the particular nation]; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”

Implications of a Declaration of a National Emergency, State of

War, and Declaration of War:

Implications of a Declaration of War Under International Law:

According to research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there seems to be few differences under international law (including the Hague and Geneva Conventions) between an officially declared war and any other form of military

engagement.

[Romo]

EG,

Very thorough. Where did you find that info? Seems to be fairly accurate. Only one i could see missing would be the Korean War as an undeclared war. Even though it was technically a UN Police Action.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Henry

I would say it's the folks launching unprovoked attacks on American soil, something along the line of flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of civilians, who decide we are at war.

There are no links to Iraq that I've seen to the 9/11 attacks.

[Funkyalligator]

There were no links to Iraq with the 9/11 attacks, I'm sure if we looked hard enough we would find that Iraq has given money to Al-Qaeda at some point and supports its activities. I think going to war with Iraq is a really bad idea because:

1. We would turn all the arab allies we have against us, I for one don't trust a single ally that we have in the region but on the surface their support is good. I think Egypt would be our best ally but Saudi Arabia in all appearences is our best.

2. Saddam has a ton of money at his disposal and I can tell you that he will make sure that there is either a huge chemical weapon attack in the US or a nuclear bomb. One of the two, in addition we will have suicide bombers like the ones in Israel.

3. Israel would probably end up pretty badly damaged from an attack from Iraq and they would retaliate with nukes which would draw the whole middle east into a war which we don't need.

4. The people pushing for this war are those in the Oil industry because they are worried about the region and they want it under American control. The US needs to stop relying on foreign imports so much and develop renewable sources of energy. If we took all the money we spent on the Gulf War and plowed it into R & D we would have been able to develop non-petroleum powered cars and such but of course the oil companies wouldn't want this so they pushed for the war. Do you realize that the US government is spending money to protect an oil pipeline in Columbia from rebel forces?