18 Feb 03
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not. When we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bThe question is not a simple one, and needs some clarification. Do you mean America the country? America the corporation? America the ideal? Or America the government?
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not. When we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bSimple answer: No
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not. When we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
Slightly more complex answer: Given that I believe the USA is a democracy, and that the current administration is ignoring common sense, military intelligence, history, AND the will of the American people (who - all polls show - are very unsure of the president's call to war) I will continue to attempt to dissuade my government from it's incorrect stance by protesting the war.
So my loaded simple question to you: yes or no? Do you oppose the Consitutional guarrantees of freedom of speech, the right to gather, and the reservation of the right to declare war to congress?
18 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by maggoteerThe United States of America is a republic, not a democracy.
Simple answer: No
Slightly more complex answer: Given that I believe the USA is a democracy, and that the current administration is ignoring common sense, military intelligence, history, AND the will of the American people (who - all pol ...[text shortened]... ther, and the reservation of the right to declare war to congress?
From maqqoteer:
So my loaded simple question to you: yes or no? Do you oppose the Consitutional guarrantees of freedom of speech, the right to gather, and the reservation of the right to declare war to congress?
Answer: No ( I will not spin off this answer ) It is a fair question, not a loaded question.
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
18 Feb 03
Not quite the answer I was looking for, but I'll respond to your question anyway: to paraphrase Bishop Desmind Tutu, who spoke at one of the peace marches, "Any war which is declared before all peaceful alternatives have been tried is an immoral war." So, my answer would be no.
18 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by britt2001bThat's certainly a cynical attitude. And I believe it undermines the entire issue at hand. The issue is not, and I don't believe ever was "is war bad?" Anyone who thinks that it isn't obviously hasn't thought about it enough. While their logic in justifying military actions may be warped, I don't believe that even the hawks in the white house think that war is a good thing. The question is, will the US violate the UN the charter by deciding unilaterally to go to war in the absence of any overt aggressive action taken against it. And this is what people are protesting. The precedent that it would set is almost unimaginably horrible - it would give any tinpot dictator around the world an excuse to preemptively attack whoever they choose because they deem that country to be a "potential threat." The flip side of the coin is just as bad, if you say that only the US is allowed to decide which governments to topple at our own whim, then the world is capitulating to a US run empire, and that's something I also refuse to support.
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not ...[text shortened]... n we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
So the answer to your question is: if the UN security council votes to authorize a military action against Saddam Hussein, then I would be in support of that war. However, I in no way support any unilateral militray action taken by the US and/or Britain, even under the false pretense of enforcing a UN action, unless the council approves it. If that were the real reason, then the US would be forced to invade Israel (which is currently in violation of over 80 UN sanctions) among many other countries whose names have never been mentioned in the context of a war.
-mike
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bIf the United States is going to war whether or not we the people agree, and without any formal declaration, and without the support of the U.N., then no. In fact, even if the U.N. can be convinced, the congress intimidated, and the people hoodwinked, I will not support the war.
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not. When we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by bbarrThank you for your honest answer. I respect it and I respect your right to vocalize your beliefs. I protested against the Vietnam war back in the 60's because I did not understand it and I could not see it in black and white and after all these years I still don't. But the crisis that now faces the world, I do see in black and white: I'm sure Saddam is seeing millions of people worldwide protesting against liberating his people. Forget the fact that there are over 6 billion people NOT protesting. I'm sure as a dictator, HE WOULD HANG ALL THOSE PROTESTERS IN HIS COUNTRY. A quote from David Horowitz ( a former communist ) is starting to make sense to me "Maybe it's good that these protesters release some of their pent up anger. It's like multiculturalists : people who have failed to achieve in America, holding America responsible. They only see negative things from America's actions."
If the United States is going to war whether or not we the people agree, and without any formal declaration, and without the support of the U.N., then no. In fact, even if the U.N. can be convinced, the congress intimidated, and the people hoodwinked, I will not support the war.
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bTrue enough and a good point, in all it's implications. Mob rule, aka public opinion polls should not necessarily dictate the government's policy. There is always the tension between preventing a tyranny of the masses and having the consent of the governed.
The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy.
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bI'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this statement. Saddam is not a nice person, I don't think anyone is trying to say that he is. But there are plenty of other unfriendly dictators out there (many of whom US policly directly supports due to economic interests in those countries) whose governments are not being targeted. And what does it prove to point out the fact that 6 billion people are not protesting? Does silence necessarily imply consent? I don't see them rallying for war either, so I wouldn't take the fact that 6 billion people didn't choose to protest on Saturday as an endorsement for war.
I'm sure Saddam is seeing millions of people worldwide protesting against liberating his people. Forget the fact that there are over 6 billion people NOT protesting. I'm sure as a dictator, HE WOULD HANG ALL THOSE PROTESTERS IN HIS COUNTRY.
Originally posted by britt2001b
A quote from David Horowitz ( a former communist ) is starting to make sense to me "Maybe it's good that these protesters release some of their pent up anger. It's like multiculturalists : people who have failed to achieve in America, holding America responsible. They only see negative things from America's actions."
Again, I fail to see the correlation. Without resorting to ad hominem attacks against David Horowitz (though he's made himself a tempting target), his argument still lacks logical foundation. To make a blanket statement that everyone who supports multiculturalism is a "failure" is ludicrous - he has not defined what is a failure, and does he know each and every person who holds this viewpoint, and their motivations? And to ignore 'negative things from America's actions' is to play the part of the fool - everyone has to realize that even the best intentioned actions sometimes have negative consequences. It's the ability to recognize and try to rectify those consequences that is the mark of an intelligent individual or government. To deny that they exist is hubris - and those are the claims that the Bush administration is trying to make.
-mike
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bI too see the issue of terrorism in black in white. Terrorism is wrong and strong efforts should be made to prevent further terrorist actions. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator who does pose a threat to the United States. The grey area for me is how to respond. Is the current Iraqi government more of a threat or less of a threat than what will replace it? Or worse, what won't replace it?
But the crisis that now faces the world, I do see in black and white
Future terrorist activities in the United States could be severely curtailed by restricting the free movement of citizens and foreign nationals, and by vastly increasing the governments authority for internal surveillance, detention, interrogation, and so forth. I would be opposed to that.
I'm proud of the many freedoms I have as an American. To continue to have those freedoms, I am willing to accept a certain level of risk that tomorrow I may be killed by a terrorist abusing those same freedoms.
18 Feb 03
Originally posted by britt2001bI would have thought the answer obvious - what sort of person would protest a proposed action, and then support it just because it hapened anyway? Wouldn't that show cowardise and having no strength to your convictions?
This statement & question is directed to the anti-war protesters. Please think about it & answer honestly with no spin. It is a direct question that deserves a direct and simple answer :
We are going to war whether you like it are not. When we do will you support America? Simple answer please, yes or no.
In short, no. I don't support a war now & I won't support it if it happens.
Was this statement suppised to be hypothetical or real? If real it is assuming either that the UN will cave in or that the US will act without them. If America attacks any country without provocation, without the support of its allies, doesn't that make them the dictators?
An analogy: we're all drinking in a bar (the world) - you're the biggest guy there (America). Some little guy (Bin Laden) doesn't like the way you've been acting so lauches a sneek attack & stabs you from behind, before running away & hiding. That hurt you a lot, and you are afraid he'll do it again, so you lash out at where this small guy was, maybe getting him, maybe not. Most of the other guys at the bar (the other world nations) were really shocked & saddened that you were stabbed, but there was one guy (Iraq) who sniggered about it & wouldn't say that it was a bad thing to happen. This has obviously more than annoys you. You also suspect that he might too have a knife and is planning to stab you. But does that give you the right to walk over & kill this man (Iraq) when you haven't found his knife or any proof that he intends to stab you?
18 Feb 03
World peace and prosperity will rise dramatically if countries like Iraq are controlled. They will remain chaotic and feed terrorism worldwide if not checked (to use a chess term). The basis for removing Saddam is the fact that he has violated 16 U.N. mandates, but I acknowledge the fact that some will never buy it. I believe we have plenty of reason to remove him. We will be more secure here if we are successful. Security has been the basis for war throughout human history, wouldn't you agree? The world is full of dangerous EVIL people and there is no longer anywhere to hide from them. The true villains must be confronted , just as in a chess game, if you do not defend you will be crushed!
18 Feb 03
2 edits
You have no basis for saying that world peace & prosperity will improve if "rogue states" are removed. Maybe what you mean is US peace & prosperity, and that is still a statement based on no fact. If the whole world was like America (& western Europe?) then it probably would be safer, because everyone would have more similar views, cultures & would therefore be less likely to fall out. That's not a reason to crush those other cultures.
100 years ago America would have been seen to be the country that needs to be controlled, by todays standards. Before that is would have been Britain, Spain, Portugal & France. We've all come out the other side pretty OK. Just because the US is the biggest power now does that give it the right to say what is right & wrong? You have a right to defend yourselves, but not to remove other cultures because they differ from your own. And it has yet to be proven that there is anything to defend yourself from in Iraq.
2 honest questions to you. (1) How many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life in you eyes? (2) Current leaders ignored, why is the American way of life superior to the Arabian?