Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War and Majority
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 100 (30173)
01-25-2003 12:27 PM


Hey guys,
I've heard quite a bit of talk about the polls reflecting that a majority of Americans, and non-Americans too, do not believe that a war with Iraq is either currently justified, or would need UN approval, etc., etc.
Question: Why would George W. Bush need a majority of Americans' support to start a war with Iraq, since he didn't even need a majority of the vote to become president in the first place?
Curious,
-Shiloh

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 9:14 AM shilohproject has replied
 Message 55 by gene90, posted 03-23-2003 5:29 PM shilohproject has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 2 of 100 (30295)
01-27-2003 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shilohproject
01-25-2003 12:27 PM


Excellent.
BTW, I just read a review of the Shrub's former speech writer who says that his job was to, "provide justification for a war."
Isn't that nice?
No, I don't think that most people think all-out war with Iraq is justified, simply because the Bush spin machine keeps saying tha there is "solid evidence" and "sure signs" that Saddam Hussein isn't complying with the UN resoolutions, but they never, ever provide any evidence whatsoever.
I heard the spokesperson respond to a question from the press that addressed this lack of evidence in the form of an attack, saying that people who wanted evidence didn't trust the American government.
I say, "DUH! Why should we go to WAR, piutting thousands of troops' lives on the line, without a clear reason?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shilohproject, posted 01-25-2003 12:27 PM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM nator has not replied
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 11:25 AM nator has not replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 100 (30296)
01-27-2003 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
01-27-2003 9:14 AM


Schraf,
It all seems so bizzare to me. Of course we don't trust the government! This country was founded, among other things, on the idea that blind trust in government was a bad thing.
I read a report which said the battle plans called for 300-400 cruise missles per day expended in the opening days of a war with Iraq. How much do you think that would cost? No wonder my kids' schools can't afford text books! No wonder the field is so very ripe for the uneducated.
God bless,
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 9:14 AM nator has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 100 (30309)
01-27-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
01-27-2003 9:14 AM


shilohproject writes:
Question: Why would George W. Bush need a majority of Americans' support to start a war with Iraq, since he didn't even need a majority of the vote to become president in the first place?
In reply, schrafinator writes:
Excellent.
I agree with the sentiment but not the logic. Bush's position is indefensible, but I don't see what it has to do with the election.
Even Rome could only keep the Huns from the gates for so long. While we must hunt down the true criminals like Al Queda, our long term emphasis must be on becoming less hated around the world.
This next part doesn't have anything to do with anything you said, but as long as I'm playing the nit-picky logic enforcer, in some other thread someone said that the US should disclose details about its own nuclear arsenal if it expected Iraq to do so. Given our advanced technology and the desireability of keeping the nuclear community small, this not only seems a most irrational proposal, but makes even less sense when you consider that unlike Iraq the US makes no secret of its nuclear capability.
The situation calls for clear thinking. Criticisms of the Bush policy should hopefully be free of equivalent logical and evidenciary weaknesses, else they merely stand in equally poor stead. What sense does it make to in effect say, "I think this policy is so stupid and ill-considered that I shall reply to it in an equally stupid and ill-considered way"? I've seen a bit too much of this.
schrafinator writes:
I heard the spokesperson respond to a question from the press that addressed this lack of evidence in the form of an attack, saying that people who wanted evidence didn't trust the American government.
I say, "DUH! Why should we go to WAR, piutting thousands of troops' lives on the line, without a clear reason?"
Yep! "Well, duh!" is exactly the right answer to, "Don't you trust the American government to speak the truth." If governments only spoke truth historical research would lose much of its fascination. If the evidence by its very nature would reveal too much about our spy capabilities then the information can be provided to the appropriate representatives of our allies. If the US and at least several allies all say the evidence is clear and unmistakeable, that would be good enough for me.
But is it good enough for war? Would it be possible to say to Saddam, "Uh, Saddam, we know you've been lying about your nuclear capability (or chemical or biological, whatever it turns out to be), and here's a few pieces of information just so you know we really know. You can destroy it now or suffer the consequences."
I especially dislike the "Iraq has been less the accomodating and forthright with the weapons inspections" justification. When weapons inspectors show up unexpectly at the door of a secure facility in Iraq, that facility must still remain secure. While the weapons inspectors examine the facility the Iraqis must still make sure that only authorized people go in and go out, and this means a set of policies and procedures. Sure, Iraq can take advantage of this legitimate excuse to hide information and munitions, but that's just too bad. Besides, if our spy capabilities are really so amazing that just revealing the information they uncover would give away secrets, then I don't think this should really be a problem.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 9:14 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 2:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 92 by maverick, posted 05-29-2003 8:17 PM Percy has not replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 100 (30340)
01-27-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-27-2003 11:25 AM


Percy,
My suggestion that there may be a relationship between the election and the administration's current position is this: give them an inch and they'll take a yard. There may well be a sense that no public mandate is really needed, afterall, since none was needed in the election. It's the ol' I-can-do-whatever-I-want mentallity.
Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong. But it is a concern of mine.
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 11:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-27-2003 3:06 PM shilohproject has not replied
 Message 8 by edge, posted 01-27-2003 3:08 PM shilohproject has not replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 3:23 PM shilohproject has replied
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 01-29-2003 3:45 PM shilohproject has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 100 (30342)
01-27-2003 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by shilohproject
01-27-2003 2:52 PM


I know that weapons inspectors have not found WMD, but I thought that Iraq was also supposed to give evidence that they had destroyed the weapons they already had. This evidence has not been produced.
Why? Personally this would lead me to believe that there are yet weapons hidden in Iraq. If they had been destroyed why not provide the evidence?
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 2:52 PM shilohproject has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 100 (30343)
01-27-2003 3:08 PM


I would suggest that the U.S. would be better spending a big chunk of money on rebuilding the civilian infrastructure. The previous war more or less "bombed them back to the stone age". It's long overdue to undo that.
Moose
"The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of a sane mind" - Ian Schoal of "Ducks Breath Radio" (I think)

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 100 (30344)
01-27-2003 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by shilohproject
01-27-2003 2:52 PM


quote:
My suggestion that there may be a relationship between the election and the administration's current position is this: give them an inch and they'll take a yard. There may well be a sense that no public mandate is really needed, afterall, since none was needed in the election. It's the ol' I-can-do-whatever-I-want mentallity.
Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong. But it is a concern of mine.
-Shiloh
Usually, the opposite it the case. A mandate gives one a mantle of invincibility and confidence. History tells us that presidents who lose the popular vote to win in the electoral college generally have impotent presidencies. Hayes was so frustrated that he announced he would not run again sometime in mid-term. Of course that only made things worse. It is possible that 9-11 changed this to some degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 2:52 PM shilohproject has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 100 (30345)
01-27-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by shilohproject
01-27-2003 2:52 PM


shilohproject writes:
My suggestion that there may be a relationship between the election and the administration's current position is this: give them an inch and they'll take a yard. There may well be a sense that no public mandate is really needed, afterall, since none was needed in the election. It's the ol' I-can-do-whatever-I-want mentallity.
In the last election I was convinced neither candidate was qualified. Over the past couple years Bush has given me reason to believe I was wrong in that assessment, but now I wonder. In any case, I had no favorite in the last election, but it seems as it still dwells on your mind, and that what happened was Bush's fault.
The last election was not a case of Bush saying, "I don't care what the people think, I'm taking this election." In reality, it was the electoral college that permitted Bush to win the election while receiving fewer votes than Gore. And if it's Florida you're really thinking of, both Gore and Bush brought their case to the courts - neither had the power to simply steal votes. There seems little resemblance to these constitutional and legal processes and Bush's desire to simply declare there's been sufficient provocation by Iraq to justify war.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 2:52 PM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 6:00 PM Percy has replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 100 (30359)
01-27-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
01-27-2003 3:23 PM


Percy,
I am, of course, aware of the electoral college: anyone with a middle school level civics background would.
I'm talking about their mentality. That's what concern me.
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 3:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 6:24 PM shilohproject has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 11 of 100 (30362)
01-27-2003 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by shilohproject
01-27-2003 6:00 PM


shiloproject writes:
I'm talking about their mentality. That's what concern me.
I think we're all very concerned about the mentality behind an unprovoked attack on Iraq, whatever its past transgressions, and it's even harder to understand given the sparse evidence available so far and the lack of domestic support. But winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is not an example of ignoring the will of American people.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by shilohproject, posted 01-27-2003 6:00 PM shilohproject has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-27-2003 8:17 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 01-28-2003 12:05 PM Percy has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 100 (30374)
01-27-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
01-27-2003 6:24 PM


Looks like only 51% of the eligable voters showed up to the polls in the last U.S presidential election.
So half the country better shut their mouths looks like they have no say in whether or not the country goes to war. They didn't even care enough to vote.
Don't vote! Then don't complain about the decisions that get made!
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 01-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 6:24 PM Percy has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 100 (30446)
01-28-2003 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
01-27-2003 6:24 PM


quote:
by Percy
I think we're all very concerned about the mentality behind an unprovoked attack on Iraq, whatever its past transgressions, and it's even harder to understand given the sparse evidence available so far and the lack of domestic support. But winning the election through the electoral college and the courts is not an example of ignoring the will of American people.
I have to disagree on this one. Like you, I was not for either candidate and actually found Bush less disagreeable (and less intelligent, so perhaps less harmful)than Gore. Despite my feelings about the election (which I will get to in a minute) I thought he was headed in the right direction for a little bit, until he started pushing all sorts of agendas past the constitution and over the will of the american people (too long to list here). And IMHO, that paricular ball started rolling after what the Republicans got away with in the election.
That election was a CLEAR example of ignoring the will of the people; Bush said so himself! Going into the election it had been predicted that Bush could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. In response, Bush made statements against electoral college victory and the usual Republican line about how a Democratic president (Clinton) had been in power without the true will of the public behind him since Clinton never had true majority vote (since a third party had split votes)though he had won in the electoral college.
Ironically, the election went the exact opposite and Bush suddenly found himself faced with a possible electoral victory against a popular vote. Boy did he and his republican party start singing a different tune then!
Still, there was a hitch with Florida's electoral votes, since the regular vote was in question. The people in charge of Florida's voting process were W's brother and one of his regional campaign managers. Both should have stepped away to let less "involved" people deal with the problems that were popping up. But they did not and simply tried to pass through a bad vote.
People who were cheated (and some who were not) started court cases to challenge the vote. The prediction was that the courts would come down in favor of the Republicans, who said publically that Gore better not involve the Supreme Court! They also went on air and lied about how other ballots were like the florida ballots (ahhhhhh... I knew everything was crooked when one of his henchmen held up a ballot I had just voted with and said it was the same, it was not, a reporter called him on this point, the henchman deftly went to another question, then at the end of the Q&A held the ballot back up and reaasserted his original lie). Though I want to say for the record, I never though the "chad" thing was as serious as the "voter turnaway" problem.
Once again irony had the day and the courts went against the Republicans and THEY (without even blushing) went to the Supreme Court. Republican justices then voted against their own party philosophy and heavy-set precedent to overrule a state's decision regarding its own procedures. Perhaps more telling, in doing this they did not correct the problems in the procedure, or say there were no problems to be fixed. Instead the court ADMITTED there were problems but said it was more important to hit an arbitrary deadline than correctly determine the will of the american public (or the will of a state). Thus forcing their party's candidate into office clearly over the will of the american public (by Bush's pre-election standards) and very likely over the actual electoral vote, if the problems had been addressed.
Where was the public outrage? It went nowhere. People acted as spectators rather than participants. It fizzled. It didn't even get revived when it was discovered (post 9-11) that the Florida election process HAD been corrupted in a way that favored Bush. The republican's got their first taste of victory via apathy.
Since then it's been a slippery slope of Bush testing the waters of what the american people will let him slide past the constitution and the general will of the public. Where people should be outraged and protesting, no one really does a thing. APATHY RULES!
Granted 9-11 gave him a lot of wiggle room, but it's not like it started after that. IMHO, it started with the election. They got a taste for what the public would allow and have been getting bolder and bolder with each move. At this point they are going for a pre-emptive war against a country that CANNOT attack us, and by all reports WOULD NOT attack us, unless we attack them first. The Republicans are going for this despite the fact that the majority of the population is against it.
As one of Bush's PR men stated last week, once the war is started the American people will fall in line behind it. I thought that statement was so telling, of what has been going on all along.
holmes
{Completed quote boxes by adding the "slash quote" at ends, and deleted the lines of "+'s" - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 6:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-29-2003 4:31 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 01-29-2003 9:42 AM Silent H has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 100 (30529)
01-29-2003 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Silent H
01-28-2003 12:05 PM


I have wavered back and forth on this issue of whether or not war in Iraq is warranted/necessary.
I know that most of you have stated that there should be no war. Which is the civilized thing to think, of course we don't WANT war. However I cannot help but wonder what all we don't know about what Iraq is doing, it is not far fetched to believe this man would sell weapons of all sorts to terrorist organizations.
At the same time he fails to produce evidence that weapons he was supposed to destroy, have been destroyed.
Why act so suspicious when you have nothing to hide?
I'm just curious as to how tightly those of you who have stated that you are opposed to war, hold to that ideal?
I do not want a war, in fact it scares me, as to the possible consequences. But if there is a legitimate threat; do you have a better solution?
How much information do we need to have to justify a war in Iraq?
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 01-28-2003 12:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-29-2003 4:47 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 01-29-2003 1:16 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 100 (30531)
01-29-2003 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky
01-29-2003 4:31 AM


As to 'attack or not' why don't we employ Bosnia standards? When Saddam (or anyone) starts killing innocent civilians, burning their houses and shooting little children, and other inhuman evils, I think it's a good reason to kick their gluteus maximus.
By that standard I propose that we declare war on Israel...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-29-2003 4:31 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RedVento, posted 01-29-2003 9:38 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024