US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

[deep]

We will see if David
(little Hill, all by herself)

can slay

Goliath
(that three-headed monster - Obama- Teddy - Oprah)

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep
We will see if David
(little Hill, all by herself)

can slay

Goliath
(that three-headed monster - Obama- Teddy - Oprah)

but little Hill rode into town on the back of a great big dragon named Bill.

[yolland]

Is that a bagpipe or a kazoo I hear in the background?

[2861U2]

Originally posted by Infinitum98

Neo-cons tend to make this image of Saddam that just because he was a dictator, he had the power of a Soviet Union type of military to invade the world.

And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511
but little Hill rode into town on the back of a great big dragon named Bill.

I have said I expect to vote for either,
in November (even though it is seriously against my own self-interest)

and I am pleased that there seems to be more objective opinions posted lately in this forum, in the recent Dem debate thread for example


In the Primaries, candidates will modify their campaigning and even hold back in an effort not to alienate a good portion of their own base.

You hear Romney saying things like McCain is a good Republican,
just not a conservative. etc.


Obama's main strength in this primary, claiming he was always against the war,
can quickly dismantle him in the general election.

The difference between Hillary or Obama as the nominee,
could be as much as 3-5 per cent of popular vote.

More importantly 2-4 States in the electoral college,
and that is the all that really matters.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by 2861U2


And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

He hadn't murdered people in years. And why put U.S. blood and lives at stake, cause the U.S. to be hated and more of a threat from Islamic terrorists, bomb a country, spend 5-100 years there just to remove a guy who killed his own people years ago? He may have killed his own people, but our presence there has caused the whole country to be instable for the last 5 years, killing and injuring probably tens of millions of people, and 4000 of our soldiers, not to mention that half trillion we've spent there. All while not taking care of our own people. So no, it wasn't worth it. And none of you neo-cons really cared about the Iraqis in the first place.

[BVS]

And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

They do? Wow, I haven't heard one say that...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by 2861U2
And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

Conservatives say liberals say that, when no one did.

Go figure.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by 2861U2


And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

if we eliminate people just on the basis of their death count, there'd be a lot of dictators we supported during the Cold War who we would then, by this principle, have to get rid of as well. as well as lots of militia leaders across Africa, and Kim Jong Il.

but they don' t have oil.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by 2861U2


And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

Don't forget this:

[BVS]

Limbaugh doesn't talk about that, so I'm not sure he would know of this...

[martha]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Limbaugh doesn't talk about that, so I'm not sure he would know of this...

He was tripping at the time.

[financeguy]

Originally posted by 2861U2


And liberals say that just because Saddam was an evil tyrant who murdered millions of his own people, he wasn't worth getting rid of.

No, they don't.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by anitram


Based on those polls YOU YOURSELF said that the public opinion had shifted enough that McCain was out of it.

Six months ago, I also thought Hillary would run away with the nomination. But things change, and we change with them. Unlike your dear leader.

It was indeed getting difficult and hard to see how he could win, but I never claimed that it was over for him, or any of the gross declarations that he was "done, put a fork in him".

[Strongbow]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Irvine511


the US has to abide by international law when it chooses to. that is what was made clear by the Iraq invasion. there is no authority that could force the US government to abide by international law, in the way that there are plenty of authorties who could force Saddam Hussein of 1990 to abide by international law.

[/QUOTE]

Thats an absurd excuse for not even attempting to pass a simple resolution condemning the invasion. Members of the UN attempt to pass resolutions against Israel all the time that they know have little hope of being passed let alone being enforced. So the United States position in the world is irrelevant to whether or not member states would attempt to pass a resolution against the United States condemning it for its actions, demanding that it cease hostilities or withdraw.

what else was the UN to do? they passed 1483 in order to try to work with an invasion that had already happened, as well as try to hold the US accountable for the welfare of the Iraqi people. it does NOT expressly legalize the occupation. it deals with the reality as it is. the invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli, and the resolution was designed to both compel the US/UK to restore soverignty to the Iraqi people as soon as possible as well as give the UN itself a role in the post-war process.

Great, so why didn't the UN use the same approach to Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, what Saddam refered to as the 19th province? If the invasion is illegal and the UN does not want the United States and coalition countries in Iraq, simply pass a resolution ordering them to the leave the country at once. Thats a far quicker way to restore sovereignty to the country. Bottom line, the UN would never approve of an occupation brought about through an illegal invasion.

you are unwilling to grasp any sense of nuance or complexity because your arguments hold no water. not all things are exactly the same.

On the contrary, if there ever was an issue that was an open and shut case, this would be it. In law, you don't approve the end state brought about by actions that are illegal.

i'm not much interested in the Clinton's view of the war. why would that matter to me, and why would you poitnt to that as some sort of supporting evidence? it isn't. it could well be that the Clintons are wrong about something.

Just pointing out that someone who you may be voting for in the fall does not or at least did not at the time agree with you on the issue.

1441 threatens "consequences" if Iraq did not comply with its demands. but it is up to the Security Council -- and not the United States -- to determine precisely what those consequences were. 678 does not provide precedent that war is the *only* consequence for a violation of 1441. what all these resolutions do is leave "intent" in the eyes of the beholder, giving everyone enough wiggle room to craft whatever argument they want to justify whatever position they wish. and there is no question it is NOT a *clear* mandate for invasion.

The Security Council in resolution 1441 determined that if Iraq failed to comply with the resolution, that military force was authorized to enforce the resolution. Resolution 678 applies to all subsequent resolution passed against Iraq. It was always sited when military action occured against Iraq through out the 1990s.

Whats different about 1441 and 678 is the context of the situation in which the resolutions were passed. By 1441, every non-military resolution or sanction had already been passed against Iraq. The only consequence that Iraq could suffer that was more serious than what it was already going through in terms of international relations was a full scale military invasion!

it is also a blatant lie that "serious consequences" is a stronger expression of war than "all necessary means." in fact, “serious consequences” is a formulation that falls far short of allowing “all necessary means" which, if you'll do some research, is the traditional UN euphemism for armed force. if that particular phrases were used, then France and Russia would have vetoed 1441. thus, they went for vaguer language, and then claimed -- as you falsely do now -- that the phrases mean the same thing.

"the use of all necessary means" was the phrase that replaced "military force" in resolution 678 when the Soviet Union protested. The Soviets wanted the most neutral term they could find so they could have it either way. Thats why in 1990, they did not go with the words "military force" or even "serious consequence".

But more important as I said above, is the situation under which the resolution is passed. Serious Consequences against Iraq in 2002 meant only one thing given that they had already suffered every consequence short of a full scale military invasion. Regardless, resolution 678's "use of all necessary means" applies to "ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS" including resolution 1441.

it is only the Security Council that can make such a decision as to what the consequences will be. it is expressly clear that the majority of its members however, have made clear that the resolution does not justify the waging of war. thus, that is why they did pass Resolution 1441. because it did NOT justify the invasion. the bottom line is that nine members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members, need actively to support the use of force.

There is only one consequence greater than what Iraq was already going through and that was a full scale military invasion. When the Security Council passed resolution 1441 with the term "Serious Consequences" that was a far more clear authorization of military force than the "use of all necessary means" in 1990.

Again, the Soviet Union played that little game that France and others in 2002 played, by voting for something but then claiming they did something else from the sidelines. What was put down clearly in the resolution and voted for by all the members speaks far louder than anything they say from the sidelines.

One could use the exact same arguement to claim that resolution 678 did not authorize the use of military force against Iraq to remove its forces from Kuwait in 1991. Although its absurd, one could claim that "the use of all necessary means" is not defined and it did not mean "military force". Thats what the Soviets wanted when they got the United States to take the words "military force" out of the resolution 678. You could make the case that resolution 678 did not authorize military force because the Soviets would not support the resolution until those words were taken out!

The bottom line is that in the case of resolution 678 and resolution 1441 there were indeed 9 members(5 in the security council) that did actively support the use of military force by voting for the resolution.

and, ultimately, legal or not, the war was a bad idea from the start

The war was a necessity given that all prior means to bring Saddam into compliance had failed, Saddam had no intention of fully complying, the sanctions and weapons embargo necessary for any containment strategy had completely eroded and were even being violated by some members of the Security Council. It would have been foolishly dangerous to have left Saddam in power given his intentions, capabilities, past behavior, proximity to the planets economic life line. Few people are argueing that the world would be a safer place if Saddam were still in power.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Strongbow
The war was a necessity

You know, it doesn't actually become true if you say it a lot.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Diemen


You know, it doesn't actually become true if you say it a lot.

Haven't you figured it out?

The war was necesary, waterboarding saves lives, and liberals don't care about the millions that dictators kill, they care more about criminals rights, and are godless.

Come on...

[Irvine511]

[q]Bottom line, the UN would never approve of an occupation brought about through an illegal invasion.
[/q]



this is demonstrably not true. i've just demonstrated it for you. your fundamental assumptions are wrong, thus, you have no argument.

end of story.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]Bottom line, the UN would never approve of an occupation brought about through an illegal invasion.
[/q]



this is demonstrably not true. i've just demonstrated it for you. your fundamental assumptions are wrong, thus, you have no argument.

end of story.

Its common sense. The law does not approve an end state brought about through illegal actions. Look at Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Look at the UN's response to the invasion on that day that it happened. Where is the similar response to the "illegal coalition invasion of Iraq" on March 19, 2003? If the member states really felt the war was illegal there would at a minimum have been an attempt at passing a resolution condemning it on the first day or the days after.

The war received the same authorization that the 1991 Gulf War did, and the UN's approval of the occupation in the summer of 2003 and every year after that is the nail in the coffin on the idea that the war was illegal.

[onebloodonelife]

I saw Barack speak in Minneapolis yesterday afternoon, and wow, I was so impressed with the energy of the crowd. It is truly something that was out of this world. The Target Center holds 20,000 people and was completely filled, with another 10,000 on the waitlist who didn't get in. The line outside in 20 degree weather was over a mile long.

It's been a long time since a candidate has sparked this much enthusiasm, and no matter what your political beliefs, it's an amazing thing to be a part of a time where people are excited to be involved in the political process.