In My Gut!

[Scarletwine]

Over the last 3 or 4 weeks, I've listened to the arguments, rhetoric, proposal, ect. for war with Iraq.

I personally see a need to resolvve Iraq's UN rebellion, however the latest copy of the resolution before Congress allows the President to attack not only Iraq, but any country he deems to be a security risk to the USA. This can be a good thing for limited use, but the document opens up alot of possibilities.

I'm sorry but I'm scared. To me this is the first step to becoming
Fascist? state. I'm sure Chancellor Wilhiem (and I'm not joking) found another reason to attack the other countries in Europe and convinced the German government of the threat they had created. Are we after the same world domination. OK, maybe not , but how does it appear to the rest of the world? I feel that Bush is after the same. How can we alone decide the danger zones in the world? Fuck Me! How do we get off making these decisions alone?

The current resolution creates a unequal distribution of power with the United States Executive Branch. This is tantemount to the one man on the button movie situation.

P.S. I often threaten my hubby to move to Canada, but never could. This is a new and dangerous equation.

I'm not making a decision for America, just stating my very real fears.

 

[martha]

I'm not making a decision for America, just stating my very real fears.

As an American, you can make decisions. You make them every time you go to vote, or don't vote, as the case may be. So you have every right to question your elected officials and the decisions they make on your behalf. Don't feel you have to back off of making your voice heard. YOU are who these people are accountable to, even if you disagree with what they say and do.


[/end of voting pep talk/rant]


Back to meat of this discussion (which I don't want to comment on)...

 

[TylerDurden]

but how does it appear to the rest of the world?

Like a gun to the head?

The 'first strike' doctrine is ridiculous.

The US decides what is a threat, and what is not, and if it deems someone as a threat, it decides that it has every right in the world to attack? And no other countries could have a say in it?

What makes a country a 'threat' to the US? How much evidence do they have to give both the US public and the world beforehand?

If the US thinks Iraq is a serious and immediate threat, then we are going to spend the next 10yrs watching the US fight war after war after war against every country that is just a little 'bad'? Or just has a different view to US foreign policy?

Does it mean that the US is the only country that can start a 'pre emptive strike'?

If another nation follows the US lead and does, then do the US have a right to challenge them? Ever? Say China goes and attacks Taiwan. What could the US do about it? Just take any argument, any article that is pro-first strike, and replace these words; 'USA' with 'China', 'Iraq' with 'Taiwan', and you'll see two things, one is how stupid the policy is, and secondly you can just see which country would bitch and scream about it first of all.

If all countries have the same right as the US to attack in that way, then won't the world just go back to 'might is right' kind of a law of the jungle thing? So the day after the US attack Iraq alone, you may as well just ditch the UN altogether, and set the calendar back to 50 years ago. Fuck it. Just fight.

If other countries don't have the same right as the US, isn't that the US openly declaring that they own the joint? The UN is kinda like a world democracy, but the US is making it like a world dictatorship?

So every other nation on this earth should abide by a set of 'rules' even a kind of moral code, except the US, but of course if anyone else even thinks about doing that, then you're in trouble with the US?

If 'pre-emptive stikes' are now ok and legal, then the US is openly and publicly threatening Iraq in a way Iraq has never, ever threatened the US ever. So why can't Iraq now attack the US? Isn't it just a race to see who can get in first?

 

[Angela Harlem]

The one word that changes the argument is 'attack' Tyler.

Who can honestly expect America to just sit back and watch nervously, these countries who do pose a threat to them? America has to do everything in its power to protect itself and the people. This doesn't even have to be an argument about GW anymore either. What would any president do in his situation? We can only speculate and use previous examples, but if you as a president are not keen on the UN's handling of these matters, you must feel, despite that, you have to continue on in your duty to protect the country that elected you. Attacking those you deem a threat is I think the real issue. I dont support war really in any way, but I sure as shit dont want to see America forced to just back off because they remain unsupported in their plan to launch this action. Every country should be able to say 'we are worried, we believe in what we see before us and want to do everything we can to prevent such a threat becomming a reality'. But to attack 'pre-emtively' I agree. I hope it wont become a case of America aiming for control over any situation that might mirror this.

There's too many good arguments for and against. It doesn't make the outcome of either any easier to deal with.

 

[Klaus]

I personally see a need to resolvve Iraq's UN rebellion, however the latest copy of the resolution before Congress allows the President to attack not only Iraq, but any country he deems to be a security risk to the USA. This can be a good thing for limited use, but the document opens up alot of possibilities.

That's a good point!

The problem with lots of laws which were changed after 9/11 and lots of letter of attorneys is.. what if someone wants to abuse this. - A frightening idea.

But secret service, police and presidents often don't think about what could be in 20-50 years, they like the enriched power they have because they are sure that they won't abuse it - not thinking about their folowers.

Some people have started to defend our democratic and liberal values by selling them out

Klaus

 

[hiphop]

Who can honestly expect America to just sit back and watch nervously, these countries who do pose a threat to them?

I can.

Who can honestly expect any country in the world to just sit back and watch nervously the enormous threat that the U.S. poses to all the western world?

Uncle Sam has a finger on the trigger as well. Put it back where it belongs.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm sorry but I'm scared. To me this is the first step to becoming
Fascist? state. I'm sure Chancellor Wilhiem (and I'm not joking) found another reason to attack the other countries in Europe and convinced the German government of the threat they had created. Are we after the same world domination. OK, maybe not , but how does it appear to the rest of the world? I feel that Bush is after the same. How can we alone decide the danger zones in the world? Fuck Me! How do we get off making these decisions alone?

Well, I for one would urge you to get out there and vote in the next election. For everyone, it will be a critical one.

I always anjoy it when the President of the US is of one party and the Congress has a majority of the other. It keeps things in balance.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm very politically active and vote in every election. I also do not want one party to have control of all branches either. With the mess in NJ, that may happen.

Bush's unAmerican slant on not agreeing with him, is scaring more opposition.