Free State Project Forum

FSP Community => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Joey on August 26, 2002, 09:11:56 am

Title: War with Iraq
Post by: Joey on August 26, 2002, 09:11:56 am

I was watching and listening closely to the morning news just now and it was reported that a Bush laywer/aid said the Constitution allows for the president to NOT ask Congress for permission before entering into a war.

Excuse me?

Someone please tell me the Law of the Land says something about "Congress may make a declaration of war."


Or is there some "claus" I'm overlooking.


Then again, I'm not surprised really. I mean, Bush had links to almost every one of the Sept. 11 surroundings:

http://www.infowars.com/resources.htm
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Halo on September 03, 2002, 11:14:27 pm
There was an editorial column in my local newspaper which said the same thing, although I'm not sure who it was in the administration that said it. Bottom line is, no one (except Libertarians) is questioning the President's authority to wage war. Seems like since the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, as long as the President doesn't declare war, he is within the limits of his Constitutional powers. Sort of like those who believe that welfare is a Constitutional entitlement because it says right there in the Preamble, "We the People...promote the general Welfare,"
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 05, 2002, 02:25:06 am
There is another factor, although I don't know if it applies.  The Gulf War never ended, if I"m not mistaken, but rather went into a conditional cease-fire, whose terms Hussein appears to have broken.  As such, Congress has already given permission for the war and the president is merely still conducting the war as ordered.

This may or may not be the approach they are taking, but it does allow for the president to fight a war against Iraq if all of the above is true.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 05, 2002, 01:40:36 pm
It could be, but then the U.S. government hasn't killed between 500,000 and 1.5 million Alaskan civilians in the process...
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 05, 2002, 05:20:52 pm
has everyone forgot that on or around sept 14, 2001 congress
also passed a joint resolution saying that we authorize the
president to do what ever it takes to make america safe ???

that along with the gulf war never truely ended .... should be
all that is needed...

now if you want to talk about how safe do you really feel ...
that might be a different discussion altogether...

reading the report how all those nasty knifes and box cutters
got through security is a shame ...

however that is now what allowed the planes to crash ... it
was the old rule that said act like sheep and they will let u go
the plane it pa was what would happen now

anyone trying to take over a plane i am in would have to
go through me to get to the pilots ...
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 06, 2002, 05:53:51 pm

has everyone forgot that on or around sept 14, 2001 congress
also passed a joint resolution saying that we authorize the
president to do what ever it takes to make america safe ???

that along with the gulf war never truely ended .... should be
all that is needed...

now if you want to talk about how safe do you really feel ...
that might be a different discussion altogether...

reading the report how all those nasty knifes and box cutters
got through security is a shame ...

however that is now what allowed the planes to crash ... it
was the old rule that said act like sheep and they will let u go
the plane it pa was what would happen now

anyone trying to take over a plane i am in would have to
go through me to get to the pilots ...


Yes, additionally - Noone argues Sadaam is a psychotic mass murderer, delights in being a pychotic mass murderer, Hates the United States, Had al qaida training camps set up in Iraq where they trained specifically in taking over passenger airplanes (YES, it's on video tape)  among other ties to terrorists.
It is now official information that he is a hair's breadth away from delivery capability of nukes, has improved his capabilities in chemical and biological weapons.
But, yeah. I guess it is better to wait until he takes out a few of our major cities and DC before we act. Sounds like a good strategy.
Good God, we are not going to go in slaughtering the general populus. We dropped food and radios to the Afghanis for crying out loud and warned the civilians to clear out of potential targets. We used absolutely incredibly precise weaponry to avoid civilian casualty. Does any one remember WWs I and II? Never before has a nation gone to such lengths to ensure minimal civilain casualty.
And as for Bush being behind Sept 11..... Yeah, I know, if you look real hard at the film footage you can see the black helicopters leading the aircraft into the buildings. And just prior to the attack eyewitnesses saw swarms of men in black sheperding 5,000 Jews out of the towers. And UFOS packed with little green men beamed up all the government employees just prior to the attack. It must be true, I saw it on a website. ::)
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 06, 2002, 07:03:45 pm
There never were Al Qaeda camps in Iraq, nor is there any evidence to suggest that Saddam is close to having nuclear weapons.  At one time he was developing chemical weapons, but we don't even know if he has the capacity to begin his chemical-weapons program again.  Finally, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Iraq could launch missiles that could hit the US.  That's beyond the realm of fantasy.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 06, 2002, 08:21:44 pm
Never Al Qaeda camps in Iraq.... mmmm I've heard otherwise. There were most definately camps where terrorists were being trained in overtaking passenger airliners though. Whether Osama stroked the check for them, well, I'm willing to concede perhaps he didn't have his signature that. Maybe that check came straight from Sadaam. Check the latest news starting to leak out re: bio/chem weapons capability of Iraq. They've been busy little fellers since the inspectors left (not that the inspectors inconvenienced them TOO much) Ditto on nuclear.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 06, 2002, 08:30:39 pm
i saw something on the news they interviewed a guy who
said he was a lead scientist in iraq and that there was
something like 600 metric tonnes of chemical agents of all kinds
and that they where less then 2 years from nuclear.

todays news said they tested a new missle that had a lot of
promise ...

so do we wait until they get the nukes and/or smuggle
chem and bios into our country and take out new york
or ca ... not dc ... i leave right out side of dc ...

or do we take care of ours before we let them take care of us

i vote take them out first ...

will we have world war iii ... if we attack or not ... i believe
there is a good chance within the next 5 years it will happen

:(
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 06, 2002, 08:34:43 pm
sorry the missle belongs to iran not iraq ... would they give
it to iraq ... to get to us .. who knows


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020906-104201-1324r

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 07, 2002, 06:27:30 am
The missiles just tested were Iran's, yes; however the latest intelligence says Iraq has improved the techniques it currently has for delivery of nuclear type weapons. Jason has a point that the nuclear strike on U.S. is only a distant possibility at best but that does not speak to biological and chemical attacks, nor does it speak to the possibility of Sadaam striking other nations including our allies.
I'm not a big fan of Neville Chamberlain. And yet it's apparent the Euros are still enamored of his policies.
We've already done and redone the weapons inspectors game with Sadaam. He's allowed trade and squanders the profits that should go toward the welfare of his people on golden palaces and weaponry, then says "see, the evil U.S. is starving my people" (ignoring the fact that these are U.N. restrictions on his trade and that they are engineered to allow legroom for him keep his people well)
As for WWIII, oh it WILL come if we DONT do anything. As for "destabilizing" the middle east.... give me a break. The Middle East is not stable NOW. If Sadaam is replaced with someone sane and of the peoples choice... that would do much to add stability to the region. Between him and Arafat.....what a couple of psychotic despots. Oh wait... thats right.... Arafat was "elected"... yeah, the only person that was allowed to run against him was older woman who was not allowed any media until the the day before  (or was it the day of?...) the elections. What with Arafats goons everywhere, right, she had a snowball's chance in hell.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 07, 2002, 09:20:27 am
In principle I disagree with the idea of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign countries when we have only suspicions and hearsay about what they might be doing, and it's anybody's guess as to whether those activities would affect us in any way (as opposed to Israel or Kuwait).  Remember that in wars thousands of people are killed.  If a war is not fought purely in self-defense those killings are murders, and the people who enacted the war policy are accessories to murder.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Patriot69 on September 07, 2002, 11:09:33 am
Quote
In principle I disagree with the idea of pre-emptive attacks on sovereign countries when we have only suspicions and hearsay about what they might be doing, and it's anybody's guess as to whether those activities would affect us in any way (as opposed to Israel or Kuwait).  Remember that in wars thousands of people are killed.  If a war is not fought purely in self-defense those killings are murders, and the people who enacted the war policy are accessories to murder.
Quote


I sincerely agree. This would be like incarcerating an individual becasue he LOOKS like a criminal and has things in COMMON with criminals. He's unshaven and drives a mid-eighties Chevrolet. We have to ask ourselves if what we have heard is really true. It's imperative that we first stop thinking that our much-beloved politicians never lie about such matters. In reality, it is their modus operandi. So, ask yourself, is Iraq a present threat to us? Let's not count the soldiers placed in harm's way, just those of us on native soil. Since it is patently obvious that aside from "terrorist activities", we are reasonably safe from attack, what then is the TRUE reason for our military adentures in someone else's backyard? Once we relenquish the old paradigm of US honesty, you'll see through this quite easily, I think. Once we stop invading the homelands of others, we may find the world is alot more peaceful...
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 07, 2002, 12:28:49 pm
i believe that we should not give any country foreign aid or
send our troops to any other country ...

but once you threaten us ... then u get ur butt kicked ...

i watched the interview that says how close iraq is to getting
nukes ... and i believe he has the 600 metric tonnes of
chemicals ... he has used them already on his own people

if he used them on his own ppl how can you not think
he will use them on the great satan ...

jason ... if i told you i hate you with all my heart and soul
and that i am going to get u or ur family ...

and then u saw me going to the gun store down town and
but the means to hurt u and ur family ...

and then i come walking down the walk of your house

at what point will you try to stop me ... will you wait til
i pull the weapon and shot u or ur family ...

or while i am walking down the walk ...

exactly when would you say it is not worth any further
risk ... and take the person out ...

i might wait til u r gone then go after ur family to make u
hurt before i take u out ... maybe even starting with a
beloved pet ...

with wmd ... do u have to take out ny, sf, dc, den
before you will protect what is urs ...

i am all for isolations ... no foreign aid ... no sticking nose
in other peoples buisiness ...

i just can not agree that when u say u r coming having
me or mine to let u get close enuf to do it

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 07, 2002, 12:34:37 pm

Quote

I sincerely agree. This would be like incarcerating an individual becasue he LOOKS like a criminal and has things in COMMON with criminals.


sorry i disagree ... who said anything about looks ... iraq does not
look like a terriost country ... it is a terriost country ...

i have seen undercover cops and know about looks ... but when some
one has killed two or three people ... and that person is walking
toward me with a weapon drawn ... do i have to wait til them
pull the trigger to defend myself ... i am sorry i will not wait til the
kill me ... before i take them out ...

we have not said take china out ... or take russia out who it would appear
are aiding iran and iraq ... we are talking about the person who has
already used wmd on their own country and who said they hate the
great satan ... us ...

if it walks like a terriost ... talks like a terriost and acts like a terriost


i am sorry it is a terriost ...

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 07, 2002, 01:36:57 pm
In todays paper

Iraq's weapons could include:

-The nerve agent VX, regarded as the most toxic of chemical weapons.

-The nerve agent sarin, a liquid or gas that causes a choking, thrashing death.

-Mustard gas, a blistering agent that can dissolve flesh on contact and severely damage the eyes and lungs.

-Anthrax, the deadly bacteria used in the mail attacks on government and the news media last year.

-Botulinum toxin, a substance produced by bacteria that causes paralysis and death.

-Aflatoxin, a poison produced by a grain-eating fungus.

Inspectors say Saddam probably has made more such weapons in the four years since the U.N. teams left Iraq.



THis info was from a U.N. Inspector ... not a U.S. Inspector

anyone want to have this hit their house ... i dont ...
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Patriot69 on September 07, 2002, 05:17:05 pm
Again, I have to ask, do we know this for sure? The only word we have to go on is that of people who get paid to stir up trouble. Please don't get me wrong, I am not siding with mindless terrorsim, but have you ever read Orwell? One minute, Oceania is at war with country X, the next they are at war with country Y and friends with country X. At one time, Iraq was our ally. Why is this no longer the case? Saddam isn't a fool, he knows he could never win a war with us. I just thnk that if we refuse to question and DEMAND the Truth, we will have this problem for a long time to come.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 07, 2002, 07:13:53 pm
i have a couple of questions ????

did iraq gas people in their own country as seen by photos
taken on the ground

are the people of iraq starving even thought millions
of dollars are pouring in from the sale of oil ... even though
their are new palaces being built ...

has not iraq called us the great evil...

if all of the above are wrong then i say wait ...
if any of them are correct then pls tell me what
you would like to do

let them come take care of your families for you

??? ??? ???

if i remember right ... and i was not around back then
did ppl not say them ... oh hitler is not doing anything to
anyone ??? leave him alone and he will go away ...

how many people died then ... if we had taken hitler out
early many people would not have died ...

people who do not learn from the past will relive the past
over and over ... and it sound like you all are ready to
relive the past
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Halo on September 07, 2002, 10:18:02 pm
wolf_tracker,

Using the scenario you put to Jason,
Quote
if i told you i hate you with all my heart and soul
and that i am going to get u or ur family ...

and then u saw me going to the gun store down town and
but the means to hurt u and ur family ...

and then i come walking down the walk of your house

at what point will you try to stop me ... will you wait til
i pull the weapon and shot u or ur family ...

or while i am walking down the walk ...

exactly when would you say it is not worth any further
risk ... and take the person out ...
, according to the laws in this country, the answer would be, when you kill someone. Citizens aren't allowed any kind of preemptive strikes to protect themselves other than a court-ordered restraining order. Hey, that's what we should do, get the International Criminal Court to get one against Saddam. ;D

I don't agree with preemtive strikes unless there was an imminent, measurable threat directly against the US. If we say we are within our rights to attack Iraq, based on what the American public knows, then we must also acknowledge and accept the Sep 11 attacks on us as equally valid. After all, war is war, and all is fair.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 08, 2002, 06:22:31 am
Wow, this is really getting wild. So you guys are saying that we cant trust the news sources, the U.N. sources or the government sources for information? Who do we trust? The National Inquirer?
In instances where I can not physically go and verify facts myself, I have to decide if there are reliable or even somewhat reliable sources of information on a particular subject. I have, from experience determined that, of the three, the news media is the most reliable; then U.S. info; and finally (with a big laugh) U.N. info at 'not at all reliable' (only when shoved up against a wall will they break down and mutter the truth under their breath.) But one can, with deliberate comparing of reports, come to some conclusion as to what the truth of a matter is most often.
I guess now you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon either?
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in your world.
Re: Iraq. There is more than one principle at play here. #1 - Saddam is breaking every agreement that was brokered when we ceased hostilities over there. That would make the agreement to cease hostilities null and void. #2 While you obviously disagree my interpretation of the facts,  the information from U.N. Sources, our own intelligence, the center for nonproliferation and multiple news sources indicate that Saddam is a clear threat. #3 He is a clear threat to our allies. Unlike others in this forum, I feel this is a threat to us. Remember the old saw about those who say nothing when the enemy goes after their neighbors... when the enemy comes after them there is noone left to help them because he did not prevent his allies from being swallowed up. #4 The opposition to Saddams regime is and has been begging for our help. If I recall we had a little help from the French during our fight against tyranny. I would like to think that if things started to get a little dicey for us and we asked for assitance, other nations would assist.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 08, 2002, 06:57:03 am
tnt ... u put it nicely ... i would like to know what sources
mouse uses that tell him everyone is lying except his sources

do i trust the government ... hell i work for the dod ... no
i dont trust them ...

however, if there was a known child rapes ... and he was
standing across the street watching my house and my kids

do i have to wait til he rapes or murders my kids before i
do something ... in mouses world that would be a yes

let me take your kids and rape and murder them ... or
get him as far away from your family as possible ...

would i do it because he/she lived near me ... no ... but
if they are scoping out my family ... many would no of my
fears ...

it looks like mouse like to quote hitler ... and we know
from hitler how hitler told everyone ... oh it is ok ... i
am not really killing/gassing/murdering anyone ... that is all
lies ...

mouse we have us wait til ny/dc ... name your city ... or
thousands of americans living over seas are taken out before
he might admit that iraq is bad ... notice i said might ...
then again all the bodies may have been faked ... or even killed by bush ...

do i wish that we could go to a pre world war ii way of thinking
where we did not stick our noses into the business of every country
in the world ... yes i wish that  and if iraq want to gas their own ppl ... let them ... do the south africans use aparthy ... let them ... it is none of our business

we should take care of ours and let every other petty murderer around the world kill their own ppl ... let them do as they will

if the ppl get tired of it ... then sale them arms and teach them how to use them ... but dont send our young men and women to die for a country of sheep that will not defend it self.

the signers of the declaration put their lives where their mouths
were ... but mouse would have us believe that everything they believed was probably made up too..or at least lies made up by bush  :)
man does he have a lot of power    :o

mouse ... pls share these great sources you have ... so that
we all can find out truely how every source we believe is lying
and that the only honest source is yours

bbc always tells the truth about how bad america is and how
great the eu is ...
hitler told us he was not doing anything and mouse likes to
quote hitler ...

so pls share your sources so we can check them out

thanks
 :o
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 08, 2002, 08:48:37 am
mouse,

your comment on scott ritter was just asked of colin powell on
fox news ...

mr powell's comment was something on the line of
mr ritter did a good job when he was involved but he
currently has no knowledge of the state of intelligence
information that we have within the state of iraq ...

you say you read 600 news sources ... which one that
you read is the correct one ... hmmm ... you read them on
and then figure out which one you believe ... what is that
the truth ... you have your ideas of what you want to believe
we have our ideas of what we want to believe ...

i believe in protecting me and mine ...

to hell with the rest ...

i believe iraq is a threat if you do not then that is
your right ... but if your right threatens my right to
life and limb ... should i just sit back and let you
dictate my rights ... the idea behind fsp is that we stand
up for our own rights ... not let them be dictate by the state

with the intel i have seen and the info i have read ...
i say take iraq out
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 08, 2002, 10:15:59 am
mouse you have made a couple of statements ...

Would you kill 1000's because you think they have a gun? Is this what you suggest? If so, to your above statement:

In the US you have a right to use deadly force if three things
are in effect:
the person must have the ability to do harm
the person must have the opportunity to do harm
the person must feel they are in jeopardy

if these three thing are truely in place you have the right
to use self defense.

I did not say I would kill the child molestor I said I would
make sure everyone knows, ie call the cops and say the perp
is scoping out the facts ... I did say they could live in my
neigborhood but I would be willing to protect mine if push comes to shove ...  

you seem to want to read into things as you want to read them
not as they are stated

tnt made the statement about never having landed on the moon and you say play nice ... but you make a statement that
the pictures of the gassed dead bodies may have been
doctored pictures ... when would you be willing to face the
truth ... only after it hits you in the face ... or the bodies
fall around you ...

if there is a free state and lets say the u.s. government moves
troops to surround all the borders of the free state and makes a statement that you can not do what you are doing and we are here to stop you ... when would you be willing to get ready for any attack ... only after the attack starts ... you would never be in the ballgame ...

you have to prepare before the attack ...

in all situations you need to know from where the attack
could come and have a counter in place before the attack starts
not after the attack.

we will agree to disagree, but i dont believe i would want
you as a backup in any kind of dangerous situation

i would probably end up dead before you decide to act



Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 08, 2002, 12:14:49 pm
They tried to set up a system, based on systems previously used, with a few interesting twists thrown in, to see how it would work out. It didn't work because it depended on an informed and reasonably educated population. Currently we have neither.

In this grain, there are those who cannot understand, and there are those who will not understand. The first type are able to learn... the second type aren't, and will refute all arguments to the contrary. A third category exists of those who have systematically been misinformed. I've seen many of your posts. You are a smart person, and certainly not in the first category.

You see... it was not a question of if but a question of when the government they established would degenerate. The only thing which would likely startle our Founding Fathers today would be the technology.

Ex-U.N. Inspector Visits Iraq to 'Prevent a War'
Sun Sep 8, 4:56 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Scott Ritter.....

We are again back to shooting someone because they might have a gun, and they might indend us ill will. If someone draws a gun on me, I can shoot them. But I cannot do so simply because I think they have a gun, and because I think they intend me ill will.
Ok.... first, Mouseborg - you are a challenging debate opponent - I hope you are enjoying this as much as I. :D
Now, as for the informed and reasonably educated population.... ikes, yes I agree with you that we do not have this. I also agree that this has given those in government and the media enormous leeway for twisting and turning things to their own ends. It appears we only disagree as to the direction it's being twisted, and which "facts" stand up to cold, hard scrutiny.
I believe that leads to our other point of contention... precisely how much of a "threat" Saddam is. In your words "If someone draws a gun on me, I can shoot them. But I cannot do so simply because I think they have a gun, and because I think they intend me ill will."
After sifting through news sources, and judging them based on history and what I feel is verifiable, I have reached the conclusion that the gun is already out of the holster and is pointed at our collective head. True, the trigger has not been pulled, but I do not want to wait for that.
Am I correct in assuming that you either feel Saddam does not own a gun or that he has no bullets? I'm not sure that we can resolve our difference of opinion on this matter as I am just as convinced that my interpretation of available info is correct as you are of your interpretation.
It is my hope, however, that after this you still consider me to only be misguided and not an idiot. ;D
We apparently also have differing opinions on Scott Ritter and his credibility.
Anyway Mouseborg, it's been a pleasure. You were kind and encouraging to me once before when I needed a kind word and I am happy knowing that you will be one of my neighbors in the Free State.
Oh, hey! Your world sounds much more enjoyable than mine.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 08, 2002, 01:21:53 pm
Part of our problem in wartime is that the evidence that _we_ need to determine whether war is a good idea is still classified.  I am sure that Bush has some intel that makes him confident that Saddam is nearing the capacity to own WMD (which breaks the ceasefire, and regardless of anything else, is thus actionable).  At some point we must trust someone, otherwise we cannot live in the modern world.  I _don't_ trust Ashcroft, but I do trust Bush to some extent, I definitely trust a panel of Appeals judges, although they _will_ make mistakes occasionally.  I also trust congress to act in their own best interest, which requires them to act in our collective best interest as far as is able.  This is not necessarily a good thing, but it should protect us from most of the injustices we would face otherwise.

Regarding the incentive of oil for attacking, we do not need to dominate Iraq to have access to their oil.  We are not dependent on their oil for survival, but rather only for low prices.  It has been shown many times in the past that taking someone as a colony for their resources is no longer ecnomically feasible.  As such, if it was merely a matter of who controlled the oil, there are easier, cheaper, and less deadly ways to handle the problem.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Mega Joule on September 08, 2002, 11:23:57 pm
I'm getting into this late in the thread so let me see if I have the jist of what is being said.

What I'm hearing is that a nation that fits a certain threat profile should be preemptively targeted for the safety and protection of the citizens.  Is this correct so far?

Some of those criteria are as follows:
1)   A nation that has openly expressed hatred
2)   A nation that has attacked or threatened to attack
3)   A nation that either possesses or may in some future time possess weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) and has expressed a willingness to use them.

Are these the things that indicate the threat level of a foreign nation?  Are these the criteria that should be used to determine whether or not a nation should be warred against?  If so should these criteria be applied equally to all nations?  



If you answered yes to these questions, first apply them to us, then tell me whether you still agree with these criteria for declaring war.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”  Luke 6:41


Meg
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 09, 2002, 12:01:40 am
I absolutely apply this to us.  I fully expect a pre-emptive strike against the US by Iraq.

As soon as we declared our intentions, we opened the gate.  If Iraq _were_ to attack us without declaring war, the international community would not view it as unprovoked anymore.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't attack, but I think we would have been better served to decide to declare war and put the vote before congress in one day.  By doing so, no matter where the vote went, we would either maintain the advantage of surprise or be able to smooth over the event with the Iraqis.

In the event of war or imminent war, secrecy is a tactical necessity.  Part of the problem of our congressional system is that the congressmen cannot seem to keep their mouths shut about important secrets.  If they could, then a proper coalition could be built without revealing our hand until we _started_ the war.  (On the other hand, state secrets should not have as long of a lifetime as they currently have)

The one thing that should not happen is that war should not affect freedom in any unoccupied part of the US (assuming anyone could ever come close to occupying us, we would need to purge enemies in occupied areas as they are recovered).  This is not an easy task, of course.

I have laid things out as they should be (in my view), but I don't necessarily know how to make sure that war is not abused.  As such, I welcome challenges to the idea, but realize that it is not a complete political theory, so I reserve the right to change my mind :)
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 09, 2002, 11:43:50 am
I believe I now see what mouse is talking about

if several ppl walk into a room all wearing guns ...
you do not have the right to shot any of them ...

i agree that if you are armed and not threating ...
there is not right to shot

however, if several ppl walk into a room with guns waiving and
pointing at different ppl and saying we are going to kill all of
you ... then i have a right to self defense ....

will you agree with this mouse???

in the above example i believe mouse does not see the
ppl walking into the room as armed where
i see the ppl walking into the room with guns drawn,
waiving around and threating the people i love ...

when mouse reviews his news sources he reads them
differently then i read my news sources ...

he sees unarmed ppl and i see armed and dangerous ppl

so i guess when it comes to what we see we are both right

now in about 5 years we will see which one of us was reviewing
and seeing the right thing ... my thought is i will see the danger and
prepare for it att ... while mouse will continue to wait and watch ...
i just pray that you dont wait to long to see the danger ...

and i pray that you are the correct person in this senerio

however in the training i have had i was trained to
know from where the threat is coming and have the
counter in place ... if the counter is taking out iraq ... now
then so be it ...

i dont see iraq putting the gun back in the holster ... which would
mean a no shot period ... i see iraq trying to get a bigger gun
so they can make a bigger bang ...

i will have the counter in place
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 09, 2002, 02:02:19 pm

Quote
author=maestro
Part of our problem in wartime is that the evidence that _we_ need to determine whether war is a good idea is still classified.


Quite right... during time of war. Thats part of the problem. The gov is walking the middle line, as it has done for some time now, so that it can selectively apply war or non war rules, or absolutely no rules, as it chooses. Basically a rabid dog.


As you noticed above I suggested that war should be declared, even if it is after a sneak attack (there's absolutely nothing unethical about a sneak attack, either) as quickly as possible after the decision has been made to fight a war.  That decision _should_ be made by congress (It's arguable that this is an extension of an uncompleted Gulf War by the letter of the law, but that's a separate issue) but should be made quickly and the prosecution of the war should be given over to the President.  The problem is that Congress must be convinced to declare war, and to be convinced, they need evidence regardless of state secret status.  On the other hand, Congress has proven itself incompetent to keep state secrets.  These secrets, revealed, might destroy entire networks of espionage and intelligence operations, and as such, they must be kept from Congress.

This makes it very difficult for Bush to persuade congress, the people, and the world that war is a good thing, even if he has 100% solid proof that Saddam is 5 minutes from completion of an ICBM with a 150 megaton warhead.

The only solution I can consider is that Congress appoints a small panel of non/bi partisan federal appellate judges to judge the evidence and provide an analysis with political detachment without giving away the evidence.  If you can't trust your judges, the whole system of government is dead, and we might as well go back to warlords and peasants.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 10, 2002, 10:07:51 am
This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Wild Pegasus on September 10, 2002, 02:40:48 pm
Quote

This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.

As for his being a madman, everything I have read about Hussein indicates not a madman, but an intelligent, shrewd, well-read man with discriminating tastes in food, music, and literature.  His attack on Kuwait, although immoral, was certainly reasonable in the wicked logic of states.  Kuwait was a part of the British protectorate that also accompanied Iraq (hence the "historical" claim), and there was much wealth to be seized from the country.  After gaining tacit approval from his ally the US, he attacked Kuwait. The US turned on him later and deemed him a monster, but it was hardly out of line with normal state behavior and certainly not on the order of wickedness as the US attacking and killing millions of Vietnamese who had done America no harm (or any other of the numerous places where the US has attacked people who have done America no harm).

After 12 years of crippling sanctions which have impoverished what was the most progressive, open, and prosperous Muslim country in the world, after a war which destroyed most of the country's infrastructure and has left hundreds of thousands without clean drinking water and viable nutrition, after being threatened non-stop for 12 years by the world's biggest army no matter what he does, SURE he wants to attack the US.  I don't blame him; I would, too.

The way to end the threat is pretty simple:

1. End the sanctions regime.
2. End the no-fly zones.
2. End all quotas, tariffs, and import controls on products imported from Iraq.

Quote

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep


Actually, it's the difference between the rational and the bloodthirsty.

- Josh

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 10, 2002, 05:05:21 pm

There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.



yes ... saddam hussein does not gas his own people, he does
not murder people in his cabinet who quesition him, he does not
use the money meant for feeding his people to build new palaces
and put it away for his own confort.

just the kind of place you should live.  if living here is so bad,
(and it has its problems i admit) then why not move to iraq.

no matter how bad america is, i notice that everyone has the
right to voice what they want to voice, complaint about the leaders
that they elect, and almost everyone else in the world wants to come
here to live.  all without fear of being murdered in the night.

is it perfect ... no ... could it be better ... heck yes ...
is it the way it is because to many ppl have their hand out
saying what can you do for me instead of what i can do for
you ... again heck yes ...

but the people in iraq who want to form a free state with out the
help of the world will continue to be murder by saddam.

again just the place to go live ....
:o
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 11, 2002, 11:29:29 am

Quote

This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.


There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.

As for his being a madman, everything I have read about Hussein indicates not a madman, but an intelligent, shrewd, well-read man with discriminating tastes in food, music, and literature.  His attack on Kuwait, although immoral, was certainly reasonable in the wicked logic of states.  Kuwait was a part of the British protectorate that also accompanied Iraq (hence the "historical" claim), and there was much wealth to be seized from the country.  After gaining tacit approval from his ally the US, he attacked Kuwait. The US turned on him later and deemed him a monster, but it was hardly out of line with normal state behavior and certainly not on the order of wickedness as the US attacking and killing millions of Vietnamese who had done America no harm (or any other of the numerous places where the US has attacked people who have done America no harm).

After 12 years of crippling sanctions which have impoverished what was the most progressive, open, and prosperous Muslim country in the world, after a war which destroyed most of the country's infrastructure and has left hundreds of thousands without clean drinking water and viable nutrition, after being threatened non-stop for 12 years by the world's biggest army no matter what he does, SURE he wants to attack the US.  I don't blame him; I would, too.

The way to end the threat is pretty simple:

1. End the sanctions regime.
2. End the no-fly zones.
2. End all quotas, tariffs, and import controls on products imported from Iraq.

Quote

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep


Actually, it's the difference between the rational and the bloodthirsty.

- Josh

"War is the health of the state." - Randolph Bourne


I hope these opinions are not representative of the majority of FSP members. I doubt it, but nonetheless . . .
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Elizabeth on September 11, 2002, 12:03:09 pm
WildPegasus is an anarchist, and the FSP is minarchist.  In general (but not always) his posts do not reflect the goals or positions of the FSP.

Now, that doesn't really answer your question, but I'll offer this guess...

While I am sympathetic to anarchist views, and am personally anti-war, I believe that many of those vocal in the anti-war movement find the dismissal of their views so frustrating that they become even more provocative in order to gain attention.  This is an example of that.

But regardless, don't worry about it, because the Free State will not have anything to do with foreign policy, being only a state.

And finally, don't feed the trolls.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Wild Pegasus on September 11, 2002, 12:44:52 pm
Quote

yes ... saddam hussein does not gas his own people,


Actually, he doesn't.  When he was an ally of the US during the Iran-Iraq War, he used poison gas several times against Iranian troops.  But he has never gassed his own people.  Jude Wanniski has covered this rather extensively at supplysideinvestor.com.

Of course, if using weapons of mass destruction makes a country evil for all times, one should point out that the first country to obtain and the only country in history to use nuclear weapons is the United States.  130,000 people were killed in two short days after Japan was already destroyed, could no longer pose a threat to the US, and was ready to surrender conditionally (the condition that they keep the Emperor).

Quote

he does not murder people in his cabinet who quesition him,


Sure, but a lot of countries do this.  Are you going to bomb and kill thousands of innocent civilians in every country which has an oppressive government?

Quote

he does not
use the money meant for feeding his people to build new palaces
and put it away for his own confort.


Welcome to statecraft.  Every state is a gang of thieves raping the productive in order to line their own pockets.  Or do you still think Afghanistan was a war to end terrorism and not a war to attempt to secure Central Asian pipelines for Bush Jr. and the gang of cronies connected to his disgusting family?

Quote

no matter how bad america is, i notice that everyone has the
right to voice what they want to voice, complaint about the leaders
that they elect, and almost everyone else in the world wants to come
here to live.  all without fear of being murdered in the night.


Fortunately, the gang in power are seeing to those rights pretty soon.  Ashcroft is talking detention camps, the right of habeus corpus is gone, the restriction on posse comitatus is following along nicely, and the administration is looking to ensconce the Stasi and the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.  Hey, I thought the US beat communism and fascism.

- Josh

FWIW, Elizabeth, I do write in a charged and passionate manner, but I am most definitely not a troll.  I write for a distinct purpose - to argue my point - and to that end I will use many rhetorical tools at my disposal.  I believe what I write.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Elizabeth on September 11, 2002, 01:51:03 pm
Regardless, Josh, being an intentional provocateur qualifies as trolling even if you happen to believe your troll.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 11, 2002, 02:13:10 pm
Elizabeth,

Thanks much for the clarification.  :)

Dave
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 11, 2002, 02:35:13 pm

There is no greater set of terrorists than those who run the United States.  If by "terrorists" one uses the classical definition of "one who uses violence to achieve political ends", then the US is certainly more guilty of it than Saddam Hussein.


I find that "classical" definition to be far too expansive to be a useful definition.  You are expanding the definition to attempt to create moral equivalence between terrorists and the US government.  There is no moral equivalence.  Both are immoral in different ways and to different degrees, and attempting to hide this does no justice to anyone.

It is obvious that declared wars between nations are not terrorism.  It is less obvious but still seems true that a announced and implemented "police action" is not terrorism.  Even less obvious, but in my opinion still true, is that any violence used to achieve political ends when used by _any_ recognized government is by definition not terrorism, but rather an act of war.

What Iraq, the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia are sometimes accused of is _supporting_ terrorism.  According to Bush's first statements after 9/11, _that_ should be considered justification for declaring war as well, but the administration has wavered on that point.

I do not approve of every military action that the US has undertaken, and I approve even less of the common mis-use of war for personal political gain, but I contend that war is not inherently immoral, just as violence is not inherently immoral.  It can be morally used in self-defense, or to defend others, even if that self-defense is extrapolated, and not clear-and-present.

And none of this even begins to address the differences between terrorism committed against states and their representatives vs terrorism committed against individual and presumably innocent civilians.  That's another topic entirely.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 12, 2002, 05:40:04 am
I hope these opinions are not representative of the majority of FSP members. I doubt it, but nonetheless . . .
They're certainly not MY viewpoints....
Mouseborg and I have been round and round on this (and I have to say he has been awefully gracious about our differing viewpoints)... I believe the information does NOT support the assumption that the U.S. is some maniacal war-mongering beast. While we've made some mistakes (as ALL nations have) we are the most giving nation on earth. We give millions if not billions to any nation where we feel there is a need. As for a previous comment re: Israel - yes we give them money just as we give money to other nations.... What people always fail to mention is that we also keep giving millions to the 'Palestinian Authority', yet rather than improve the lives of their people they intentionally keep them living in squalor so as to breed yet more anger and resentment. I could go further but that is off topic. No the U.S. is not the Great Satan of the world. Is the government an out of control leviathon, heck yes. Is it repairable?,.... we shall see.... we are hoping that is the case in at least one state.
As for a previous question from I believe it was Mega Joule - would the principles that cause me to say we should get Saddam out of power apply to us in the Free State? Heck yes if the same conditions were in play.
If we were in the free state and had established ourselves as a nation; some tyrannical despot had come into power; he was routinely assasinating any who opposed him (often as a spectator sport in front of those he thought might entertain notions of opposition in the future); if he gassed a bunch of us who were trying to find independence from him; if he twice invaded neighboring countries using our children as fodder; if he has launched missiles at four of our neighboring countries; if when a country pushed him back after an invasion attempt he broke every agreement for the cease fire; if he was taking monies from trade that were specifically earmarked for OUR welfare (remember we are NOT living in a free society and because of a number of related conditions are largely reliant on these monies) took them and spent them on yet more large palaces, women, expensive cars and yet more weapons with attack yet more nations; if we lived in constant fear of our lives if we dare to try to rid ourselves of him; if numbers of us did form a resistance, yet it was not enough, but were begging the U.S. to please help us get this guy out of power;....
yup, I would be for America trying to get this guy out of power and freeing us of him.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 12, 2002, 05:58:31 am
be carefully percy,

your blood lust is showing.

and remember that most of what you hear from the news and governement
are all lies and your are being fooled by what they say ...

remember if you are willing and able to defend yourself, your family and your
country, then you are full of blood lust.

however, it sure seems strange that the doves/sheep love the freedoms that
the hawks/bloodlust die for.

I have not noticed the move to add iraq as one of the choses to move
to as the free state.  But I am sure it will happen before we get to the
5K mark.

;)
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 12, 2002, 09:16:51 am
state-controlled media . . . hmmm . . . . who, then, can you trust for reliable news?

curious.

thanks,

Dave
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 12, 2002, 12:12:26 pm
I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.  In fact, due to their size, they _don't_ have anything to fear from government censorship.  They have to consider the cost to their credibility if they make overly antagonizing statements, but don't you believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they had enough to persuade the population.  

And then you lump Fox into the mix, when it is quite obvious that Fox takes a distinctly different approach to the news than CBS and NBC.

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.  Media is not state-controlled, and the influence of state is not even overpowering.  The media is free and any collusion going on is not a matter of policy, as is obvious given the enormously common situations where the media _does_ disagree with the administration, or congress, or whoever happens to hold power.

Of course you must be willing to challenge your news sources and you cannot take everything at face value, but the big 5 are not significantly more unreliable than any other news source.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Patriot69 on September 12, 2002, 12:47:04 pm
While it is understandable to trust "sources" we have relied upon for years or even decades, we cannot allow oursleves to become complacent regarding where we get our information from. If we allow our information sources to give us erroneous information, then what are the odds of us supporting a just cause?
Remember the Reichstag fire? Hitler used it to great success to promote his cause. Why is it unfathomable that Bush is using similar tactics? Again, as with the OKC bombing, we had nary a clue beforehand, yet, almost instantly, we had the villains in custody. Hmm, seems as if we either don't like pre-emptive strikes, or the govt. is lying. There's always a first time, right?
There comes a time when it is not only just, but necessary to remind our "leaders" just WHO holds the power. As a Libertarian, I wouldn't go so far as to fire the first shot, but sometimes the sound of a round being chambered is all that's required to get your point across.
I don't want to pick on those of you who concur with the "official" story, but as I recall, the purpose of govt. was to provide for the common DEFENSE. Shortly after the attacks, we were told that Afghanistan was our source of woes, now since we effectively OWN Afghanistan (oil and gas), Iraq (oil) is now the source of all human misery. As a rational, thinking human being, don't you find this rather coincidental as well as possibly outside the area of DEFENSE? Someone posted the rationale of individuals doing pre-emptive strikes against their neighbors. What makes this so different? I'll tell you, none of us have ever met Hussein, so killing him and murdering his countrymen is nothing more than nightly news statisics for most of us.
Next time you see Iraq in the news, don't think in dreogatory  terms, look at Mr. Hussein and his countrymen as human beings with families and opinions of their own.
Perhaps a pre-emptive strike really is murderous after all



Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Stumpy on September 12, 2002, 12:56:07 pm
Our media, for the most part, present the news factually.
The presentation is, however, skewed to a leftist/statist point of view.
Examples
1)   A man goes berserk with a gun at a Virginia school. The media jump at the prospect of filming gruesome gun violence with its inevitable calls for more gun control. But there was a problem. An armed citizen stopped the wacko. So, rather than reporting on the positive contribution made by a gun in the hand of a private citizen, the media didn’t report this fact as vigorously.
2)   At the same time that Matthew Shepherd was murdered, a couple of homosexual men took a boy, tortured and raped him till he died. Because the Shepherd incident might foster sentiment for hate crimes legislation, it was maximized. The other occurrence was barely reported.

The government does not directly control the media. The media is controlled by leftist/statist.

Fox, is the exception.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 12, 2002, 01:08:20 pm
Well stated Stumpy,  you made a couple of very valid statement.

We must pay attention to what is said between the lines as well as what
the lines themself state.

That is a way to stay informed.  If all government is lairs and all news sources are
lairs it make it difficult to stay informed.  I can not go to every spot on earth to see
what is true.  I do listen to ham radio and know that some of the facts stated there
are totally different then facts here.  But a large part of that is your outlook.

Like the Pro bin Laden rally in London.  Does that mean England is against us.

I dont think so.

There may be some ppl there against us, just like some ppl here are against us.

But we have to stand up for ourselves and those that we love.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Stumpy on September 12, 2002, 01:27:11 pm
It’s like eating peanuts.

Eat the meat.
Throw away the hull.

Trick is, knowing what’s the meat and what’s the hull.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 12, 2002, 01:32:04 pm
I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.  In fact, due to their size, they _don't_ have anything to fear from government censorship.  They have to consider the cost to their credibility if they make overly antagonizing statements, but don't you believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they had enough to persuade the population.  

And then you lump Fox into the mix, when it is quite obvious that Fox takes a distinctly different approach to the news than CBS and NBC.

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.  Media is not state-controlled, and the influence of state is not even overpowering.  The media is free and any collusion going on is not a matter of policy, as is obvious given the enormously common situations where the media _does_ disagree with the administration, or congress, or whoever happens to hold power.

Of course you must be willing to challenge your news sources and you cannot take everything at face value, but the big 5 are not significantly more unreliable than any other news source.
BOOYA!!!!! The government does NOT control the media. I'm not saying it might not attempt to get coverage slanted a certain way (clinton was MASTERFUL at this) But no, if anything the media is, usually trying to dig up dirt and contradict the government.
 Just one example is Watergate, but there are many others. And I'm NOT complaining that is precisely what they are there for!
As one gains a certain amount of time (years) actively following the news and what reality bears out as truth, one slowly decides what their credible sources are. In my experience time and reality has lent credibility to the mainstream media if only in that they do report the facts truthfully for the most part and tend to be very critical whenever possible of government. I do not appreciate the statist slant that is ever present but some reilef can be found in Fox.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 12, 2002, 01:43:42 pm

Quote
author=Dave Reese
state-controlled media . . . hmmm . . . . who, then, can you trust for reliable news?


Bingo. You have stated the problem precisely. Sorry, I don't have an answer, though I do understand the problem. I did reference this in an earlier post on page 2 of this thread. Even the so called 'alternative' news sources are pretty bizarre in most aspects, and often have some rather twisted agendas.


Mouse, I hate to bug ya, but in light of your above statement, how do you know the media is indeed state-controlled?

If you can't trust a media source to tell you, then you're pretty much left to find out for yourself, through hard experience.

No flame intended.

Dave
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 12, 2002, 03:22:51 pm
There is most definitely a slant in the media, and often I will use a news source merely as a reference to find other news sources so that I can compare information and extract the info.  It is usually pretty easy to spot the biases, especially once they have been pointed out a few times.  

The problems we notice with regard to government policies of war and police actions, is that the media is not given the information needed to be entirely accurate.  You'll end up with estimations and guesses, but you should be expecting them, since they are usually clear about what the government will and won't tell them.

Government secrecy is a separate issue from media inaccuracy.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Elizabeth on September 12, 2002, 03:46:49 pm

Its less a case of inaccuracy as it is censorship (partial or full exclusion, either of certain aspects of an event, or entire events). UK news often is a bit less censored, with events appearing there which appear here partially or not at all, though UK news has its own share of spin & slant.


Yes -- I often watch or listen to BBC World News -- they are slanted too, but in a completely different way.  In particular, I get a lot from their coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on September 12, 2002, 04:37:02 pm
Good lord this is a huge thread.  I really didn't take time to read too much of it so I'm sure this has already been pointed out.

Basically the US hasn't gone to 'war' since world war II.  All other military conflicts were not 'wars' because Congress never 'declared war', many time they passed a resolution to support the president but they didn't officially declare war.  Supposedly the war powers act limits the Presidential war powers to just limit excusions of like 30 or 60 day or something, subject to extension if American troop's lives are in danger from a hasty withdrawl.  But it really doesn't limit this power at all.  Basically the President is Commander in Chief.  What he says goes and the military obey's only him.  Now this isn't how it was supposed to be, IMO the Congress was supposed to declare war and then in that war the President controls the military and when the wars end as declared by congress then the military stops fighting.  Oh well too bad for the democratic repuplic.  One of my friends who is in law school said that really to law and the court system the constitution doesn't mean anything because if there is popular support behind something then it will be allowed even if it's against the constitution.  Sometimes it seems like common law is stronger than our constitution.  For example the recent Court case about making it illegal to execute menatlly dissabled people (note I'm not make a case for or against this practice) the Supreme Court decided it was 'cruel and unusual' basically because more people think that now than they did in the past.  There has been something like 10 states or something that made it illegal so the SC is like "Uh okay looks like a bunch of people don't like this so sure let's get rid of it! Whatever, suddenly it is against the constitution whereas if only 3 states made it illegal then it would not be!!!"  In the past the SC had ruled the opposite btw.
-Eddie
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 12, 2002, 05:30:12 pm

Quote
author=maestro
I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.


Size? You lost me there. Just did search on all 5 thread pages, only 1 occurance other than yours being 'sized' refering to city.

Quote

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.


This far into the thread (currently page 5), one presumes participants have read preceding posts, so as to avoid having to redundantly re-post previously posted basics & details. When one is a ways into a discussion, to restate each position in detail becomes too tedious and time consuming. To do so would also result in a dramatic increase in post size, every post needing to be larger than all which precede it to contain all details previously covered... See the problem?

But then again, your post may have been to someone else, as there was no included reference... If so, ignore this post.  :)


The size was a reference to your previous disparaging of the Big 5 media companies.  On the other hand you mentioned that you used a collection of smaller media sources for your informational needs.  Perhaps you weren't using their size as an indicator, but the implication was there for me to see.

The oversimplification that I describe refers to your implication that the big 5 media companies are _always_ lying about everything they report about.  You make these claims without providing strong evidence for your case.  

I have read the entire thread over a period of time, so I may have forgotten some of your arguments, but all of the evidence that you have quoted that I can remember can be attributed to Government secrecy leading to media inaccuracy, or to self-censorship  based on market forces.  If a media corp generates something that is unreasonably inflammatory, they risk losing more customers than they gain.  If they had enough material to prove their statements beyond reasonable doubt of the average tv viewer, they would jump on it without regard to the inflammatory nature.  This has been demonstrated repeatedly, and the media has stepped on the toes of just about every agency, organization, corporation, and important persona in search of a scoop.

The media is not under the control of the government and acts in its own interest.  The government is not under the control of the media and acts in _its_ own interest (to our detriment).  It is oversimplification to take these two groups and claim without evidence that they are in collusion.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 13, 2002, 06:00:19 am
Mouseborg, just as an aside.... among most who follow the U.K. media "The Guardian" is notorious for it's anti-american slant and is, at best, unreliable. In my personal experience they play very fast and lose with the facts. If they were honest enough to post the retractions and corrections they ought to that would comprise half their paper/website.
I understand you could dismiss this, but just be very careful when gathering info and make sure you judge them just as critically as you judge the U.S. media. Make note of how they present things and let a little time pass to see if what they say bears up under reality.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 13, 2002, 06:12:31 am
OK, I can't take it anymore... I have to say it.... you giving credence to The Guardian really explains ALOT.
Ok - I'm ready, you get a free disparaging comment in my direction.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 13, 2002, 06:52:35 am
percy, i believe you are partly right... i do not remember seeing anything lately from a british
news source that says anything nice about anything american

this from the people who followed hitler

and in my heart i am beginning to believe that is the road we are once again walking down

the road that allowed gas chambers to gas jews

it appears that history is going to once again repeat itself

look how many people say that everything happening in the middle east is
because the jewish people will not roll over and die, but they stand up and
fight for the family and country ... god forbid ... wanting to live free and not letting
people walk over you ...

are the people signing up for the free state willing to fight if necessary ...
i wonder ??? ??? ???
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Elizabeth on September 13, 2002, 08:20:56 am

this from the people who followed hitler


Godwin's Law!

Time to lock the thread.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 13, 2002, 09:52:01 am
1. what does a locked thread mean ... you are shutting off discussions

2. are you saying that many people in europe did not follow and approve of what hitler
did during world war ii

3.  are you not seeing the same thing happening now ... i hear/read that oh the poor people
in the middle east are so picked upon and it is those darn israelies that are doing it ... they
should be punished ... israel should not be able to defend itself ...

what is wrong with any of those statements

my understanding is that a locked threat means no more posting on a topic ...
and no one is calling anyone anything ... we are voiceing what we feel are important
to us ... and not attacking anyone else ...

so does that mean you can stop anything anytime ...  ??? ::)

just wondering
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 13, 2002, 12:13:28 pm
 Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
                    "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 13, 2002, 01:00:51 pm


With all due respect, you would not consider it government control when Rice tells the big 5 to collectively put a lid on it, and they immediately roll over and play dead? They weren't even subtle about it.

That was pretty blunt and hard to miss.

That is censorship via government, no matter if one sees such in a simplified or complex context. If you do not see such a thing as government mandated censorship, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as there is no other way to illustrate it more fully, since they themselves provide the evidence.



Okay, perhaps I misunderstood the extent of what you were trying to say with your previous posts.  I still disagree with your immense distrust, but that's for you to work with.

It seems to me that the government _asking_ the big 5 to be quiet about something is very different from _forcing_ them to be quiet.  The only consequence that the big 5 would have faced for refusing is that the gov would have used the bully pulpit to berate them, which is within the right of the administration to do to any media source.

As such, I can't consider the hush-request about bin-Laden's speeches to be censorship.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on September 13, 2002, 02:01:44 pm



With all due respect, you would not consider it government control when Rice tells the big 5 to collectively put a lid on it, and they immediately roll over and play dead? They weren't even subtle about it.

That was pretty blunt and hard to miss.

That is censorship via government, no matter if one sees such in a simplified or complex context. If you do not see such a thing as government mandated censorship, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as there is no other way to illustrate it more fully, since they themselves provide the evidence.



Okay, perhaps I misunderstood the extent of what you were trying to say with your previous posts.  I still disagree with your immense distrust, but that's for you to work with.

It seems to me that the government _asking_ the big 5 to be quiet about something is very different from _forcing_ them to be quiet.  The only consequence that the big 5 would have faced for refusing is that the gov would have used the bully pulpit to berate them, which is within the right of the administration to do to any media source.

As such, I can't consider the hush-request about bin-Laden's speeches to be censorship.


Personally I think it's foolish to NOT misstrust the media!  No I'm not a conspiracy theorist I just think it's totally folish to believe something you hear from one source!  Actually I don't nessicarily misstrust them as much as I am skeptical of them and most other media for that matter.  I'm skeptical of the big 5 (and Fox if this doesn't include fox) I'm skeptical or NPR, BBC, Pravda, and Rush Limbaugh!  But I listen/read all of them because I can find that usually you can piece together the truth with a bunch of perspectives.  It's not that they report things that are factually innacurate it's just that our media is not in the news business, they are in the entertainment/information business.  Our media (and the rest of the world too I think) has a certain way of approaching news that causes them to ignore and omit important facts that would otherwise dramatically change ones perception of events.  For example people are freaking out about child kidnappings but the number of them happening are actually decreasing.  The media just focuses on one or two sesational cases.  These should be a local news story and it is not indicative of any overall trend but they think people will watch it so they run with it.  It was the same last year with shark attacks, it wasn't any more than normal.  When the Enron thing happend I watch like 5 hours of Skilling's C-SPAN testimony to figure out what happend.  All of the news stories were exactly the same about the whole Enron thing and contained no substance whatsoever.  They were actually specifically missleading.  If Skilling showed in detail how it was impossible for anyone to know about this specific event here in advance, then the media reports "Skilling: 'I didn't know anything!' "  The truth is that I don't know whether Skilling did anything evil or illegal but what I do know is that he gave a detailed, logical, and articulate account for what happend to Enron on the House floor (most of the members there didn't even understand what he was saying [or try to]) and no one has been able to show any connection to him or incentive he would have for helping Fastow with his corrupt partnerships.  What I hope you guys realise is that to our media this absolutely doesn't matter they just don't care whether he did anything wrong or not.  Somebody has to pay!  We need to throw that bastard in JAIL!  If he didn't know he SHOULD have known!  Yes that's right we are making it a crime to not know everything all the time, and no we don't care!  You ask how can we judge? We know nothing of the nature of the business or what the specific circumstances were, and we don't even have a passing knowledge of those financial structures or even finance but we know that he was rich and he must pay!!!!!  The same thing happend to Gary Condit by the Fox news channel.  Despite being a huge slimeball Condit was hung at a witch trail where there was never anything to indicate he had anything to do with Chandra's dissapperance.  While listening to the communist on Pacifica radio the other day I heard that the assasination attempt on Karzi the new pres. of Afganistan was actually stoped by one of his aides and not his american body guards.  The aid jumped on top of the assasin and then the American body guards opened fire and killed both the assasin and the aid.  The media reported that the American body guards saved Karzi.  Again I don't necisary believe either but the communist one rang more true to me than the mainstream one so I tend to believe it in this case.  Actually I think my best source for info in the Economist.  Point is don't trust everything you see on TV and if after watching a story you feel very strongly for or against something you should remember that this was in the design of the program and you should look into the other arguement as well if you want ANY objectivity.
-Eddie
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: malina on September 13, 2002, 02:08:34 pm

Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
                    "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.


This exception refers to bringing up hitler or the nazis for the purpose of ending the conversation, and that's not what happened.
Quote

6.  "Hitler!"  Ha!  The thread is over!

Nope, doesn't work that way.  Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):

   Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
           "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
   
   Sorry, folks.  Nice try, though.

From:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/)

Godwin's Law is further at work already, as we're currently discussing the law itself.
(From the same FAQ)
Quote
When it [the invocation of Godwin's Law] happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law.


Selective quoting is a cheap defense, and besides, lighten up. Godwin's Law is nothing to get bent out of shape about, it's just an amusing set of observations.

Malina
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: percy, aka tntsmum on September 13, 2002, 03:28:45 pm
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying the stories referenced from the Guardian are entirely fabricated?

These same stories appeared on US sources as well, they simply umm... poofed after a short while (counting on the American publics short memory... always a safe bet).
Quote

Ok - I'm ready, you get a free disparaging comment in my direction.


Hehehe, not my style. You just get to feel guilty for misbehaving is all.  :P

Elizabeth is prolly right however, the thread has prolly run its course (I agree with the ref to Godwin's Law as well).

People rarely if ever change their beliefs (usually strictly emotional based) due to bashing things about on message boards. That sort of thing more often requires running face first into it, which is normally a very unpleasant experience.

My "Guardian" comment was a general one not relating specifically to that article.
And thanks for taking the high road and not retaliating. Classy guy. Eventually It may rub off and I'll start behaving a little better.
You are right, this really does seem to have run it's course. It's been fun though.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 13, 2002, 03:47:40 pm

Personally I think it's foolish to NOT misstrust the media!  No I'm not a conspiracy theorist I just think it's totally folish to believe something you hear from one source!  
-Eddie


I agree.  I simply am speaking against kneejerk assumptions about collusion and governmental control of the media.  

No media source (or any other source, for that matter) is unbiased.  We should recognize this and obtain our information accordingly taking into account likely lines of bias.

Bias does not assume collusion or conspiracy.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 15, 2002, 08:00:37 pm
check out this article of how long it will take iraq to
get nukes ....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-417076,00.html

and see why we are worried

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 16, 2002, 12:19:59 pm
It seems to me that it would cost a lot more to fight a war over the oil than it will to simply buy access to the oil.  I haven't done all the research to prove this, but isn't that why colonialism has collapsed?

Given the information that MouseBorg has posted, It does appear that we stand to gain some oil money as a result of war on Iraq.  But if that was the primary reason, I think we'd be spending more than we gain.  Since the war is already necessary for other reasons, then the spoils can surely be used to offset the military expenditures.

The two quoted democrats from the article saying that Iraq is not a threat, might examine their own party's stance on conflict with Iraq in 1998 (under Clinton's reign) when the leading democrats, Daschle, Kerry, and others, were banging the drums of war.  Democrats have an agenda to weaken the republican administration as much as possible in order to get more democrats elected in this mid-term election season.

The game of politics makes it very difficult to believe any politician, and the philosophy behind Democratic politicians makes them even less easy for me to believe.  The media plays this game as well, but not as often and with less finesse.  The media is bound by facts, at least to some degree, so once the spin is mentally removed, you can often come up with the facts.  Politicians, on the other hand, speak pure spin and can speak without saying anything conclusive at all.  In this case, the democrats in question are touting opinion as fact and attempting to turn the tables, accusing the administration of being the aggressor in the conflict.  The go aggressive, claiming war as an agenda for the elections (which is possible, but an expensive way to improve public perception) before the Republicans can say that their slanderous words are part of an election agenda, thus making it more difficult for them to make that point.  My point is that these democrats are playing the game (pretty well) and that their words bear no direct relation to the facts.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 16, 2002, 05:32:11 pm
Admittedly, MouseBorg, you are rather convincing.  You've made me think of other possible causes for this situation.  That doesn't mean that I agree with you, but just that I have to work harder at disagreeing. :)  I haven't had a workout like this in a long time.

I'll get back to it when I can do a little more reading on the sources you've brought up.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 16, 2002, 05:52:28 pm
Iraq agrees to weapons inspections

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return "immediately and without conditions."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020916/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/


We may not have to worry about this war after all.  On the other hand, if this _is_ entirely about the oil, Bush will try to spin the situation to concentrate on the past human rights violations and continue the war anyway.  Even if it you are right, MouseBorg, it is possible that Bush will abandon the idea for political reasons, so the only thing this can do is prove your point.  It can't prove mine, unfortunately :).  Lets watch how things unfold.  
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 18, 2002, 04:06:20 pm

Iraq agrees to weapons inspections

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return "immediately and without conditions."



except for the following :

http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=698298&in_review_text_id=671535

from the british press .... and not the u.s. press

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 18, 2002, 05:22:21 pm
Yeah, I got my hopes up but Saddam appears to be attempting stall tactics and/or divisive tactics.  Very intelligent of him, but I doubt it will work.  The war looks to be reasonably well-supported by the general population based on the polls.

I can't say I'd be sorry to see it happen, although thanks to MouseBorg, I'll be a little more wary of events.  I can see that one of the reasons for attacking Iraq could be oil accomodations (although not likely outright takings, since the political reaction to that would be quite dangerous), but I don't necessarily see that an ulterior motive negates the _other_ reasons for going to war.  

As to the expenditure of military lives, it seems to me that war is what they signed up for, and that they have no contractual right to be upset at being sent.  They can protest the war causes in private, but they are bound to fight the war by contract.  Regardless, we're not likely to lose very many men.  Iraq is not a difficult target, as was shown in the _first_ gulf war.

I think that if we take as given that the US is going to remain an international interventionist, then this war must be fought.  I can understand arguments for military non-interventionism (I think there's a shorter term but it slips my mind) and I consider it a possibility that we would be better off following such a separatist approach.  I think that pulling back instantly at this time would probably cause some serious world-wide chaos, but I support the reduction of intervention in the long run.  In the short run, I favor war with Iraq for reasons I have stated before on this thread.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: wolf_tracker on September 18, 2002, 05:27:09 pm

I support the reduction of intervention in the long run.  In the short run, I favor war with Iraq for reasons I have stated before on this thread.


i agree and i believe that to much is being said about oil ... i believe
it is about protecting the people of the world more then it is about
oil.

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 22, 2002, 10:07:01 am
Mouse:

One might think that your profound distrust of the media would prevent you citing it as any sort of an authoritative source, particularly if your citation comes from a part of the American media.

Dave

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 23, 2002, 09:08:11 am

Quote
author=Dave Reese
One might think that your profound distrust of the media would prevent you citing it as any sort of an authoritative source, particularly if your citation comes from a part of the American media.


Yup, one would think such, wouldn't one...  ;D

But I'm going to have to search back there through all of that to find the part where I said any of the sources were authoritative, as I don't recall doing so... Actually quite the opposite if I remember correctly.

Addition:

Nopers, I checked... no such critter.

Am I safe in presuming your post was an attempt to point out some form of flawed internal logic, in that I present references which I feel lack authority to others who do feel they are authoritive?


Nah, not really . . . that would make you something of a sophist, which I'm sure you're not.

The point is simply that a profound distrust of the mainstream media (regarding them as more or less a mouthpiece of the state) should logically preclude the citing of said media should they support a position that criticizes the state.

No flame intended. It just doesn't seem to fit to me when the mainstream media is described in one sentence as a state puppet, and then in another sentence Dan Rather is quoted. If anyone is part of the mainstream media, it's Rather; as such he shares the media's supposed total lack of credibility.

Just my .02. :)

Dave
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on September 23, 2002, 04:07:00 pm
Well I'm not as jaded as Mouse borge and I'm also not reading through this whole massive massive topic but here are my 2 cents.  What has happend world wide in the 3rd world dictatorship countries (at least the ones that pretend to be pro western) is that 'anti-terrorism' is just the latest buzz-word that allows dictators to do whatever they want.  It's like 'fighting communism' during to cold war or how Russia spins locking up innocent people as 'convicted on drug charges' everything is just media spin these days.  You find a 'legitamite' cause like fighting drugs or terrorism or communism and something that would otherwise be reprehensible becomes somewhere between 'questionable' adn 'taking a hard line' on drugs, communism, terrorism etc.  Pakistan's government has recently invented a terrorist group that it has been rounding up members of when really this is just Mushareff getting rid of some enemies.  All the important terrorist are still there and he can't touch them because they are too powerful politically with the people in certain areas.  I don't think Bush is going into Iraq for oil.  Yes I think it's part of the reason but I also think it's because ultimately he plans on taking out Iran and Syria also.  When 9-11 happend I heard that we were going into most of the middle east countries and taking out terrorist along with hostile regimes.  Well that might actually be what they are doing just much slower than I thought.  While everyone was up in arms still I thought the best approach was to call up the reserves and send ultimatums to almost all the middle eastern countries stating that each country must find a rout out terrorists and that they must submit to armed military occupation by the US until such time that terrorists are no longer a threat in their countries.  Cooperation must immediate and unconditional or war would be declared.  This I thought would be effective because the Americas would unify and we would systematically eliminate terrorist without boundaries to worry about.  Instead the current plan is more crafty.  Divide and conquer.  First Afganistan, also Pakistan is now our lap dog and as time progresses we will lean and lean and lean on them more and more until they find and imprison all of their terrist leaders.  In the mean time we do the same to Saudi Arabia and also we invade Iraq.  Then we Iran surrounded and we either aid the anti-gov types there or we help with an ivasion.  Syria is small an may be delt with by pressure or military or perhaps issrael.  This takes care of just about all of the middle east, Egypt is already pretty pro West and we have influence there.  This strategy is probably more effective from a logical stanpoint but it doesn't capitalize on the all of the passion to rid the world of terrorism everyone had after 9-11.  Again if we do this we must absolutely stay afterwards and build up these countries or else all will be for naught and they will hate us and we will have the same problems again.  Anyway maybe I'm a war hawk but my main concern is not getting people killed.  If we can take over a country with minimun losses and give these people a representative government and peace and stability that will foster a real economy then we really have made the world a better place while making this country a safer place.  Everyone wins I think... but only if we stay and rebuild.  Right now in Afganistan we are not doing enough and our troops are only in the capital really.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Dave Reese on September 23, 2002, 09:58:50 pm

Quote
author=Dave Reese
No flame intended.


None seen... Though you do seem to be arguing the presentation method, or the philosophical aspect of the method, as opposed to the data being presented. Interesting approach.  :)


Ya got me. I've enjoyed our exchange. :)

Dave
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 25, 2002, 09:32:55 pm
So can I assume that that you have forgiven my unintentional insiunation when using "conspiracy theory?"

I considered this to be a new bit to add to the debate.  That even if Bush was rolling in oil interests, we cannot consider that as an immediate reason to cancel any plans to go to war with Iraq.  For an oil conspiracy to be the key reason for war, we must debunk each other individual reason until there is no reason that holds up to scrutiny.

You _have_ caused me to doubt the administrations reasons, but not to reject them.  With further examination of other sources which I have determined I can trust (specifically Neal Boortz) as well as CSPAN radio, an unbiased direct reporting of events (unbiased since they do not add _any_ commentary whatsoever), I feel that there is still a need to remove Saddam.  They've provided the apparent facts of the matter, and I have used the political philosophy of Machiavelli and others to determine the logical course.

I don't believe in wide-scale governmental conspiracy because the government is split almost evenly between the two parties.  Both parties are statist, but are able to find the most vicious of issues to disagree upon.  They would never be able to work together in one conspiracy and I think there is little evidence that there is one conspiracy for each party.  Without unified action, no governmental conspiracy would have the power that would be needed to start wars purely over personal economic gain.

Regarding your aside, there are at least a few of us who think that the federal government as determined by the constitution is a reasonable one.  The power to declare war is specifically a power designated to Congress, and the power to prosecute war is designated to the President.  As such, there is nothing unconstitutional going on with regard to war.

You'll find that I disagree with almost everything else that the federal government does.  Their role is very limited by the constitution and they've been slowly usurping power for over 100 years now.  The fedgov also has the right to enact diplomacy among nations, even when that diplomacy ends up being the cause of great strife.  I disagree with their actions in many of these cases, but not their constitutional right.  If international affairs was the only problem with the fedgov, I'd probably be a happy member of the republican party right now, working to change the platform in _my_ state.  Their interference with citizen's liberty is what makes me a FSP supporter (not yet a member due to overwhelming fiscal responsibilities)
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: schm00 on September 26, 2002, 09:08:08 am
I for one think that US interventionism is the root of todays terrorism in America, and that we would be much better off staying out of any other countries problems, period. Does anyone think we would have angry muslim extremists over here raising hell if we simply left their country alone?

Call me callous, but I dont think it is our responsibility to help "liberate" any foreign land for anyone. If you ask me, it's been a long time coming and frankly I am suprised it's taken this long for terrorists to become a real threat to the US.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 26, 2002, 10:59:48 am

I for one think that US interventionism is the root of todays terrorism in America, and that we would be much better off staying out of any other countries problems, period. Does anyone think we would have angry muslim extremists over here raising hell if we simply left their country alone?


I do.  I think it would take a while, but the islamic nations are stuck in the age of empires and warrior missionaries.  They are motivated to conquer other nations and to destroy other faiths.  They are not strong now, and they might never become strong enough given the current political atmosphere.  However, if every nation stood aside until they were directly attacked, the islamic nations would conquer one nation after another until they _were_ powerful.  The only thing that would stop them would be competition between the islamic states.

Their leaders are not content to remain within their borders, but want to expand them.  They have stated this outright many times in the past.  Should we assume they are bluffing, and lying to their people?  Do we wish to allow the consolidation of islamic power through conquest?

It is my opinion that this situation is unlikely to the extreme, but that is only because the world will _not_ act in a non-interventionist way when provoked by conquering invasions upon other nations.  The US is merely trying to end this threat before they take over their _first_ nation.

On the other hand, I _do_ think that we have intervened far too often in the past.  I just don't want to dismiss the idea of intervention entirely.  After all, the US would probably not be here if it weren't for the intervention of the French.  They lent just enough naval strength to help us turn the tide of the Revolutionary war
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: schm00 on September 26, 2002, 12:40:25 pm
However, if every nation stood aside until they were directly attacked, the islamic nations would conquer one nation after another until they _were_ powerful.  The only thing that would stop them would be competition between the islamic states.

Hmm. You have valid points, however I don't think they detract from my argument of interventionism breeding terrorism. While islamic wars might result in a larger, more forbiddable foe which may someday rise and try to overthrow our country, I think that would be more of a motivator to build a better defensive system.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on September 26, 2002, 02:55:02 pm
Terrorism is a common strategy because it is supported by some and tolerated by many.  If it were punished severely and quickly, it would soon become a fringe strategy.  As an example, examine the Israeli way of handling hijackings and hostage situations.  Airline hijackings are non-existent due to the impossibility of gaining any advantage.  Similarly, hostage situations are treated with swift death, without concern for the hostage's lives.  Sure a few hostages died early on in the program, but now they don't even _have_ hostage situations anymore, since there is no advantage to be gained.  

As such, any act of terrorism should be quickly tracked down, and the terrorists and their immediate supporters should end up on the wrong end of a bomb.  While the suicide bombers themselves may not care if they live or die, their programmers/leaders do, and the nations and groups that support them are not immune to fear.  A short stint of extreme brutality can remove the threat of sponsored terrorism forever, relieving the need for later larger wars.  All that will remain after such a campaign are the small independent groups, which alone cannot cause significant havok.
Title: Re:Are You Properly Invested?
Post by: maestro on October 11, 2002, 11:25:56 am

And just to make sure things go properly:

Quote

The US has rejected an offer by Iraq to let it inspect sites it suspects of being used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2315989.stm

Another no-brainer.


Quote

Despite talks between Iraq and the UN on restarting weapons inspections, the US has said it does not want them to resume until a new resolution is passed in the Security Council


Without that new resolution, inspecting any particular group of sites is worthless.  The only way that Iraq can stave this off is to allow fully unfettered and unscheduled inspections.  The new resolution will demand this action.  If the US goes in now and inspects those sites (which were undoubtedly cleaned up as soon as the US announced its suspicions), that will give the UN excuse to delay passing a more stringent set of inspection demands.  Saddam Hussein is playing a very intelligent game of deception, and many in the UN are happy to play along.  

You've explained why oil might be a motive for going to war.  You have never shown it to be the only, or even the most important reason.  There is nothing inherently wrong with making money off of war.  If the war needed to be fought, we can't _not_ fight it because someone, somewhere might make some money.
Title: Re:Are You Properly Invested?
Post by: maestro on October 11, 2002, 02:05:28 pm
Quote
author=maestro
The only way that Iraq can stave this off is to allow fully unfettered and unscheduled inspections.

You would of course welcome unfettered & unscheduled inspections of your own person, home, & property at whim (without any related evidence of wrong doing).

No doubt any upstanding real American would immediately agree to this. After all, patriotism now means bending over for ones government when told to do so (sans lube)... for our own good of course. (tongue in cheek)

Oh wait... we already do so... thanks in part to that wonderful (anti) Patriot Act, and the mass of crap decrees which followed it on a nearly weekly basis.

I stand corrected.  ;D

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine

This is more like a situation where a warrant has been sworn to search your house, and you won't let them into the bathroom.

And once again to reiterate, there is no law protecting the rights of nations.  Nations' rights only exist to the extent that the nation can defend those rights.  By necessity, there is no rule of law between nations.  To have enforcable rule of law between nations would require a global government.

Quote
However, to state all obvious reasons, and attempt to demonstrate such, would leave me with too many fronts to work with, which I'm not about to do (I also have to occasionally get work done too, otherwise customers get ticked off.  :) ) Its more than enough effort to simply point out a couple issues at a time - currently oil/natural gas & war profiteering.
You've no need to rehash the fact that some politicians (many?) will profit from this war.  I concede that fact.

Quote
Quote
There is nothing inherently wrong with making money off of war.  If the war needed to be fought, we can't _not_ fight it because someone, somewhere might make some money.
Even when the same folks orchestrating the situation are the ones profiting from it? Kinda like a doctor releasing a plague to keep himself in patients. Certainly nothing wrong with charging for services rendered, but um... even when one is creating those very same scenerios which then require ones services?

I would argue that your simile doesn't apply appropriately.  Imagine the doctor gave you a treatment to cure an illness, but that treatment caused a side effect (which was known to be likely).  The doctor would be well within his rights to charge you for an additional treatment to diminish the side effect.

I contend that the war must be fought for reasons _not_ pertaining to oil.  If this to be true, there is nothing wrong with making money off the war.

As such, we shoudl be arguing over whether the war does or doesn't need to be fought, not that the government might make money off the war.  In fact, if the _government_ (rather than the politicians) can make money off the war, all the better, since that would mean _we_ would pay less of the cost of waging the war.

Quote
The problem/solution creation concept in itself isn't a issue of course - this idea has been around for a long time (this method - though not intentional - pays the bills of most folks in the puter field, as the solution to an existing problem tends to become the next problem, sigh), but it becomes very dirty business when it results in major loss of life, extensive property damage, and such.

if it can be unintentional in the computer business, can't it be unintentional in politics?  You seem to just jump at the chance to attribute every political action to malice, rather than stupidity where it often belongs.  There _are_ good people in politics, who try to do what they feel is best for the country.  Of course they are not altruistic, per se, since they gain power and a upper-middle class income from doing this, but one needs not be an altruist (if such a creature exists) to do good things.

Quote
There is also the matter of agreement (or not) between the parties involved to conduct such business in the first place. I have not agreed to such (which comes out of my tax dollars, and goes into whos pocket? Yours? Certainly not mine... unless I've invested in war related industries, and even then I'll only see a fraction of it return if I'm lucky. The mass profits are taken off the top, not the bottom.)

Until we have a successful Free Nation Project, we will have taxes, and those taxes will pay for what the politicians determine we have asked for (since we voted them in).  This complaint is immaterial in the current political setting.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on November 01, 2002, 11:17:14 am
While it was amusing, I dissagree with you mouse that these things are "easily verifiable".  In fact (with the exception of the obvious and relatively meaningless things like Condolizza Rice had a ship named after her) I'd say more than half of the assertions were obviously false.  Exspecially with the numbers they throw around.  There are many ways of dissproving the assertions for example if Cheney at any time ever had $34 Billion he would be tied with Warren Buffet as the second richest man in America.
The Taliban was in many was a puppet set up by Pakistan about 3 years ago.  They did not even exist during the Russian/Afganistan war and the US never sent them money or arms.  When could they have?  The Oil pipeline is NOT going through Afganistan it is going through Azerbajan and Turkey it's already a done deal.  Assertions like "Cheney's company builds oil piplines" are stupid because of course it does it's an oil company.  etc. etc. etc.

Mouse it is obvious that you really think oil is respocible for all of this.  I will try to go back through your posts and read as much as possible and then I'll tell you what I think.  A few parting reasons I don't think oil is NEARLY as important as you is because.
1. The war will probably cost as much as the entire value of all gas sold int the US for an entire year.
2.  When the price of oil goes up the oil companies make more money.  If the war is to get control of oil then it will increase our supply of oil and reduce the price and the oil companies will make less money.

-Eddie
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on November 01, 2002, 01:55:53 pm
Quote

Those holding a product set its price, irrelevant of the quantity they hold. Welcome to the Global Economy Chess Game.

Hopefully thats enough to get going with, along with the previous posts in this thread. Again, let me know on any points which you feel aren't well covered, and I'll try to supply links, data, or whatever. Theres no shortage of such.


This only works out if the holders of the product collude, and as we've seen, even OPEC isn't very good at colluding, since a short-term violation of that collusion can net the betrayer a lot of loot.

We see this happening in diamonds, but from what I understand, almost _all_ diamonds start out in the hands of one company, De Beers, who has shown willingness to go to extreme lengths to maintain that monopoly.  Oil, on the other hand is available around the world in greater or lesser amounts, making Oligopoly a bit difficult.

This is also why I do not believe in conspiracy within the government on any significant scale.  There is far too much profit and power avaliable to the betrayer in almost any consipiracy between powers.  Anyone willing to conspire against the people of the nation is not below betraying his fellow conspirator for greater profit.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on November 01, 2002, 02:26:08 pm
So you suspect the US _government_ will become the property-holder of the world's oil?  Because if not, then we won't have any one oil company in the US holding it.  The oil companies will scramble in the dust fighting over any oil that becomes available due to war.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on November 01, 2002, 02:56:53 pm

Quote
author=maestro
So you suspect the US _government_ will become the property-holder of the world's oil?


No, not quite... Thats a reversal of sorts in cause and effect. That would be equivalent in a way to saying that the gun that shoots the meat eats the meat. The person holding the gun benefits, not the gun itself.

The government is simply an instrument to attain such. Behind this instrument are genuine people, whose names, as well as their connections & past history, we know well.


But as long as there is no _one_ person in charge, then conspiracy will be difficult due to the untrustworthy nature of partners in crime.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on November 04, 2002, 01:15:38 am
Ha ha Mousy mouse you are too much of a conspiracy threorist!  I am only on page 2 of your responces and you are like Mel Gibson in conspiracy theory.  I will continue to go through your responces so I don't reinvent the wheel here.  

I just think it's funny how you think a sector of the economy that makes up less than 1% of the U.S. economy is behind all major political decisions and activities in the entire world.  How did the oil companies get so good at controling the world?  Why not Walmart or some other larger sector of the economy?

-Eddie
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on November 04, 2002, 01:39:49 am
Sorry mousy I didn't make it through yet but I wanted to put forth a few quick questions anyway.

Guess what I don't think Iraq is an immediate threat because it is obvious to me that it is not any more of a threat than it's been for the past X years and most people should be able to figure that out if they care too.  Now what I want to challege you on mousy is your concept of sovernty because I think it is messed up.  
Personally I don't care if we attack Iraq, but if we do attack we had better do it responcibly.  You are against preemption against any soverign state but soverignty is a totally arbatrary distinction.  It is determined by other soverign states recongising a state a sovereign.  Any consideration of 'sovernty' for a non representative government in a pro-libertarian decision making process is foolish I think.  If I saw someone having their rights violated I would try to stop it.  It doesn't matter to me that they are not citizens of my country.  I would only talk to the government if it had some kind of represenativite government otherwise I would ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist and probably get in a war when I stop their army from killing people.  What is a legitiamate army and what is an illegitamate army?  What is a band of rouges and what is governing body?

-Eddie

Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: maestro on November 04, 2002, 05:13:53 pm
Sovereignty is purely based upon power.  If you have enough power, you are a sovereign state.  Even if you are not powerful enough, if enough other powers agree to your are a sovereign state, you are a sovereign state based upon their power (although that's a dangerous position to be in).  As such, the US is unlikely to ever lose its sovereignty, since it maintains its position as the greatest power in the world.
Title: Re:War with Iraq
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on November 05, 2002, 12:42:26 am
Well sovernty is based upon power but only if you want to be soverign.  I'm sure the mob could make a soverign state if they wanted to but it is in their interest to stay in the shadows.

Mouse I know that premption has been covered elsewhere and the whole "well I have a gun pointed at your head" vs. "it's over there in the night stand and I'm to get it and kill you" vs. "I'm really mad and going to go home and get my gun" has been been discussed even in the little I read.

As for soverignty I still think the US fits my description of "some type of representative government" and we will probably have to dissagree about that.  Again this is another relative distinction which is difficult to make real progress on with others.  I don't think the pres. election was 'stolen' you do.  I don't think that there is a massive conspiracy anywhere and I am guessing that you do.

For me I think the media is stupid and our method of electing people is stupid.  I think everyone is lazy and apathetic and it's sad.  
I do agree that the actions and the policies of the US Federal government have no connection whatsoever to what the people want.  Basically if you keep the people fat and happy (or convince them problems come from elsewhere [i.e. corporations]) then they'll reelect you and let you do whatever you want.  I really do think it's sad how Americans have absolutely no control or even slight influence over foreign policy.  What I really hate about the coming war with Iraq is not that it is happening but that the american people were sitting on their couch and if asked "Should the US go to war with Iraq right now?"  they would say "Uhhhhh........ no?"  and then Bush decides to go to war and they said "huh?........... okay whatever"
Despite how much I hate these circumstances I blame the people of the US for putting us here from their apathy.  Mouse maybe you think that all American elections are staged or somthing or that no matter who people vote for the result will doctored so that the people in the back room decide who wins.  IF you do think that I dissagree.  You might argue that people do get to choose between Ds and Rs but that is just a farce a show to make people think that they live in a democracy because really the choice is the same.  
IF that is what you contend then I actually kind of agree.    I would agree that there is little real choice.  Perhaps the only main point I dissagree with you on is that I don't think there are any people "in the back room" making decisions.  There is no master elite class controling us.  Instead I think it's more of a Brave new world scenario without the people in charge.  Everyone has their little world of mesureing the frequency of wigit vibrations that most people don't have time to care about everything else let alone learn about the issues in detail.  
I was in the Pension/EE benifits field for about 8 months after I graduated college.  I very large part of many people's job was to learn and correctly apply the pension tax code.  Well so who writes these laws?  The only people who care about pension tax code are people who work in the pension field.  Sometimes people who don't know about pensions think they have a bright idea that will help employees and add in some law that doesn't make sense.  So eventually they get that section taken out because none of the people who work with the law like it.
Anyway the point is that I believe the reigns of power lie around for anyone who cares to scoop up.  I think the people of the US could easily overthrow the bad parts of the current system they just don't care enough to.  They don't have time between finishing the 513C transmittal package, picking up Charlie from Day camp, folding laundry and watching the Packer's game.  In Texas the Religious right has basically taken over the school textbook adoption policies and actually gets textbook printers to change and reprint their text books.  Why?  Because Texas is such a big market for schools and no one else cares about text book adoption.  no one else shows up for the public hearings on textbooks except for these guys.  Oh well though, that why I like this project.  Even if we piss people off wherever we move maybe they will start caring about their country and community again and get involved.
-Eddie