Thread for pro-War Arguments

[David Floyd]

chegitz is right in that the concept of judicial review is Constitutionally....shaky, to put the best face on it, but Ethelred is right in that judicial review is a very good thing.

At least in my opinion

[Ramo]

Yep, it's shaky. But there's good reason to believe that this particular power is implied since the idea is specifically mentioned in the Federalist papers, and certain state Supreme Courts exercised the power of judicial review prior to the drafting of the Constitution.

Besides, SCOTUS had justified certain actions by the government before the practice of review was entrenched, perhaps implying that judicial review is a power of SCOTUS.

[Capt Dizle]

There are a great number of reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein.

In the last century we had two world wars that cost the lives of millions of people. Because of constant march of technology it is evident that future world wars will be devestating beyond belief.

Wars tend to erupt regionally and then spread into wider conflicts. The first line of defense is to maintain regionally stability. Secondly, it is very important that the UN have a strong presence in the world so that nations will not revert to the traditional means of providing security, that being alliances with other nations. Those alliances themselves can be deterents to war, but in and of themselves they can trigger growing conflict.

The failure of the UN to evolve into an organization that can enforce its resolutions is the overriding threat to world stability in the world today.

That Iraq, and specifically Saddam Hussein's regime, is a threat to Middle Eastern stability is clear. Efforts to somehow preclude action against Iraq because other nations present potential threats completely miss the point. Iraq has been an outlaw nation for more than a decade. The UN has been engaged with Hussein's regime and if he is allowed to continue it will indeed set a terrible example that other tyrants will be certain to follow.

Replacing Saddam will not only reinforce regional stability but also put other nations on notice that the Hitler method of bully and lie will not work. Certainly, this should be done with the full approval of the UN, but if the US has to lead a limited coalition it will prove beneficial to the UN in the long run because it will cause the members of the UN to rethink its fundamental principals and change will occur. This will occur because the nations of the world cannot allow any single nation or coalition of nations to become dominant, even if it is the relatively beneign US.

Currently Saddam diverts oil profits that are mandated to be used for food to other uses, possibily even to fund WMD programs and as a result Iraqis starve. Children starve and Saddam blames the US and the UN. He clings to power through murder and oppression. He supports terrorism. He tried to ignite a regional war by launching SCUD missles at Israel in the Gulf War and would probably do that again.

Many reasons have been given as to why the US should not engage the Hussein regime. Many reasons were given for Britain and France not to engage Facsist agression in 1939.

In the end you have to fight evil sooner or later. It has always been that way, and it always will be. To those who say that Saddam is small fry and not worth the effort, I say (without necessarilly agreeing) lets draw the line with this small fry and maybe the next tyrant will be deterred.

[Capt Dizle]

I get a chuckled out of discussions of constitutional legalities in relation to a President's power to make war. I remember one Abe Lincoln that ran roughshod over the consitution once upon a time and gee, in some instances his admirers are those most vocal about not letting Bush cut any corners now.

And they were BOTH Republicans!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I remember one Abe Lincoln that ran roughshod over the consitution once upon a time and gee, in some instances his admirers are those most vocal about not letting Bush cut any corners now.

Who are you referring to? I can promise you that neither DF nor Ramo are admirers of Lincoln.

And they were BOTH Republicans!

which means...?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
There are a great number of reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein.

In the end you have to fight evil sooner or later. It has always been that way, and it always will be. To those who say that Saddam is small fry and not worth the effort, I say (without necessarilly agreeing) lets draw the line with this small fry and maybe the next tyrant will be deterred.

The problem with Bush's attempt to justify the war with Iraq is that it is tainted by the oil/vendetta issue. But beyond that, fighting evil is best done later rather than sooner. Why? Because 'later', the the issue is inarguable. You'll have global consensus eventually if Saddam is truly as bad as Bush says he is. Now, however, it appears only half the US populace favors war, and it seems support is even lower outside the US. Is Saddam bad, or is Bush just on a roll? It seems we don't know for sure.

In short: If Saddam ISN'T a threat and the US invades Iraq to topple him, it will be a gross violation of sovereignty and a war crime.

And before anyone points out that Saddam could use NBC weapons... we don't imprison people for crimes they haven't committed. We shouldn't attack nations for things they might do, either.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

The problem with Bush's attempt to justify the war with Iraq is that it is tainted by the oil/vendetta issue. But beyond that, fighting evil is best done later rather than sooner. Why? Because 'later', the the issue is inarguable. You'll have global consensus eventually if Saddam is truly as bad as Bush says he is. Now, however, it appears only half the US populace favors war, and it seems support is even lower outside the US. Is Saddam bad, or is Bush just on a roll? It seems we don't know for sure.

In short: If Saddam ISN'T a threat and the US invades Iraq to topple him, it will be a gross violation of sovereignty and a war crime.

And before anyone points out that Saddam could use NBC weapons... we don't imprison people for crimes they haven't committed. We shouldn't attack nations for things they might do, either.

Saddam has already done these things, is in violation of a cease fire agreement and 16 UN resolutions.

Your statement about it being better to fight evil later rather than sooner is illogical. Later means more death and destruction. Had England and France reacted to the occupation of the Rhineland it is highly unlikely that millions upon millons would have died.

So, its better to wait until Saddam kills a million with a nuke? Preposterous.

[orange]

I love what just happened.

Floyd comes in here and posts a perfectly legitimate thread. Alls he wants is for those who support the war to state, in a post, why they feel that way. He didn't put a troll...he didn't throw out bait...he just wanted to see why you feel the way you feel...

...and the FIRST thing all the pro-war people do is run in here and post things like "well why do you oppose the war?" and "You're wrong, Floyd" and those that did post why they wanted the war to occur were vague and gave a one to two sentence response with little or no base.

Absolutely pathetic.

[Ned]

“What is best in life, Conan?”

“To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.”

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Your statement about it being better to fight evil later rather than sooner is illogical. Later means more death and destruction. Had England and France reacted to the occupation of the Rhineland it is highly unlikely that millions upon millons would have died.

Later also avoids the nasty problem of having to read minds to know someone's intent. Saddam hasn't attacked the USA; why should the USA attack him?

So, its better to wait until Saddam kills a million with a nuke? Preposterous.

What if he never does? Don't you think it's wrong to violate a nations sovereignty based on what you think they might do to you?

More to the point, does it occur to you that other nations might find that concept objectionable, because your next president might be even crazier and go after them?

[Ned]

Also, the Catholic Church, dating from the days of St. Augustine, has a well developed concept of "just war." Here is a snipet.


The Catholic just-war tradition focuses on two main areas of moral judgment: jus ad bellum, or the right to go to war, and jus in bello, or right conduct in war. For jus ad bellum, a war must be focused on repelling injury or aggression, entered into as a last resort, and carried out by a legitimate authority. It must have a reasonable chance of success. For jus in bello, a nation at war must respect noncombatant immunity and be limited in scope. The means used must be proportional to the purpose intended. "

Also,

For Cicero, the ability to wage war rested with the state, and the state alone, and could be lawfully waged only "after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made."

If war comes after Saddam has been given every opportunity to avoid war by compliance with the just demands of the United Nations, the war will be just.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by orange
I love what just happened.

Floyd comes in here and posts a perfectly legitimate thread. Alls he wants is for those who support the war to state, in a post, why they feel that way. He didn't put a troll...he didn't throw out bait...he just wanted to see why you feel the way you feel...

...and the FIRST thing all the pro-war people do is run in here and post things like "well why do you oppose the war?" and "You're wrong, Floyd" and those that did post why they wanted the war to occur were vague and gave a one to two sentence response with little or no base.

Absolutely pathetic.

Maybe some of us know Floyd and his opinions, and find it pointless to list reasons to a guy who thinks that ANY government action outside the US border is wrong, opposes having a military, taxes, and basic government, yet tells you it's his right for the federal gov to protect and take care of him, yet he owes the gov nothing.

Maybe that was the reason Orange.

[MRT144]

so chris, you presume to know exactly what floyd will say and do and in doing so find it pointless to reason with him?

hmmm sound familiar?

[aaglo]

Invading Iraq is the only responsible thing to do.

I believe that Iraqise majority doesn't agree. They don't want american crap there. They have enough crap of their own.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MRT144
so chris, you presume to know exactly what floyd will say and do and in doing so find it pointless to reason with him?

hmmm sound familiar?

Yes. It sounded very much like David Floyd's stated politics. Chris did leave out that David is an Anarchist perhaps that should have been there as well. His position on the US and ALL wars the US has ever had is well known. The only one he might have found acceptable was the Revolution. I forget his position on that one.