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

[BVS]

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

 

[martha]

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

He was tripping at the time.

 

[financeguy]

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]

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]

The majority of the country and world disagree

The war was a necessity

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

 

[BVS]

Re: The majority of the country and world disagree

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]

[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.

 

[deep]

a long time

sounds like a cake walk

compared to that hannah montana concert I took my nieces to a few months back

 

[martha]

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.

It is exciting, and I think it's especially important for young people. If they think it's like this every time, it just may end up like this every time.

 

[anitram]

 

[onebloodonelife]

It is exciting, and I think it's especially important for young people. If they think it's like this every time, it just may end up like this every time.

Exactly. The key to this election is getting the young people energized and out to vote. I think Obama has done this beautifully. Hopefully, each election after this will continue to be as exciting.

I'll throw up some pictures of the event in a little bit too.

 

[U2democrat]

Elections will only be this exciting if we continue to have candidates this exciting, and we will only continue to have candidates this exciting if we have an excited, informed electorate to choose them, and the electorate will only choose them if more exciting people would step up to the plate out of our citizenry.

 

[martha]

Maybe all this will result in continued higher quality candidates.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Let's hope this does lead to better candidates.

Here's a public link to my Facebook photo album of the rally: http://minnesota.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2093681&l=edf47&id=45809822

 

[martha]

Nice.

But no movie stars.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Nice.

But no movie stars.

True.


Obama's kind of a rock star though...doesn't that count?

 

[martha]

Obama's kind of a rock star though...doesn't that count?

Close enough.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Close enough.

I thought it might be.

 

[maycocksean]

Exactly. The key to this election is getting the young people energized and out to vote. I think Obama has done this beautifully. Hopefully, each election after this will continue to be as exciting.

I'll throw up some pictures of the event in a little bit too.

Eh, I don't know. . .Deep tells me that young people getting excited about politics and you know getting involved and voting and researching the issues is on par with going to see Hannah Montana.

I guess his take is that all you silly overexcited youngsters should just stay home--your vote doesn't count anyway.

Have I got that right?

 

[onebloodonelife]

Eh, I don't know. . .Deep tells me that young people getting excited about politics and you know getting involved and voting and researching the issues is on par with going to see Hannah Montana.

I guess his take is that all you silly overexcited youngsters should just stay home--your vote doesn't count anyway.

Have I got that right?

Yeah, I mean, what was I thinking, getting my young head involved in the grown-up issues...

 

[martha]

Almost back on topic: Can someone 'splain to me why McCain is pissing off "conservatives"?

I mean, he hates the gays, thinks my uterus is his beeswax, and wants the war to continue. What's the issue?

 

[anitram]

He loves dem immigrants? Campaign finance reform left a bad taste in their mouth? He's against drilling in Alaska?

 

[anitram]

Here you go, martha, the right has done the work for you:

 

[U2democrat]

"Restrict freedom of speech during elections"

What in the world do they mean by that? Campaign finance reform?

 

[redhotswami]

"Restrict freedom of speech during elections"

What in the world do they mean by that? Campaign finance reform?

maybe somebody's caught on to our dunk tank debate idea.

 

[anitram]

"Restrict freedom of speech during elections"

What in the world do they mean by that? Campaign finance reform?

I was wondering about that too.

More Republican hatred of McCain.

And that last point is why – be prepared for this, folks – I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie, amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says:

"I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase wack job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage?

Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom.

 

[Irvine511]

He loves dem immigrants? Campaign finance reform left a bad taste in their mouth? He's against drilling in Alaska?

torture, too. he's against that.