Originally Posted by lljadw

1)The war was not unconstitutional : the decision to go to war was approved by Congress .

2)That Bush II had plans for a war against Iraq does not mean that it had the intention to attack Iraq.

3) A great power that is not riposting after it is attacked,ceases as a great power .The credibility of the US depends on its willingness to riposte after an attack .

4) The electors wanted no second Vietnam,but a short and cheap war .


5)The aim of the war was not the liberation of Iraq .

6) The leader of the US does not need a written proof to start a war,he only needs the consent of Congress .The war against Iraq was as constitutional as the war of 1898 against Spain, or the war in Korea,or the war in Vietnam .All depends on Congress ,not on the usual anti-patriotic protesters,besides: 100000 is nothing on a population of 300 million :the electors approved the decision to go to war and reelected Bush .

7) Don't give me the usual liberal nonsense of "the good guys" .

So people who exercise their constitutional right to protest are unpatriotic? What about the people who fight in the war, are they unpatriotic too?

This wasn't Spain, Korea, or Vietnam. This was a deliberate telling of half truths to outright lies to prosecute a pre emptive war. Congress and the people only gave their consent because they believed the lies that were told to them.

I certainly know the difference between plans and aims. The Bush administration absolutely was going to find any way to fight Iraq during the Bush administration regardless of 9/11 or not. The book Cobre II illuminates that fact in great detail.

Yes, the war WAS unconstitutional. It was an authorization to use military force as an extension of the War Powers act based off of knowingly bogus intelligence. Is a person convicted of a crime on bogus evidence still guilty of that crime?

The aim wasn't to liberate Iraq? Really? Then what was it? I distinctly remember being ORDERED to refer to the invasion as the liberation of Iraq while I was there fighting back in March of 03...while you were behind a computer screen, no doubt jumping for joy that Americans and brown people were killing each other in the cities and deserts of the region, I was killing and trying not to get killed by those "arabs" as you say...

The 100, 000 person march was intended to show that there was a large movement against the war. It wasn't the sum total of people in this country who disagreed with the war you idiot. Nice try though.

So you don't think that a liberal democracy needs a moral justification to go to war? Way to show how morally bankrupt you are. You have no idea how to fight and WIN a war. The foundation to win, if you are a democracy, is to ensure the justification is airtight....or just be hypocrites. I prefer not to be a hypocrite. You have made clear where you stand on that note.

It is quite nice to see how consistent chicken hawks are worldwide though.

To remain on your level : only an idiot can think that a war in unconstitutional,because the reason for the war was a lie (which he was not) :every war the US were fighting was constitutional: unconstitutional wars do not exist .

For your information : the Constitution is saying that Congress is declaring war ,thus,what Congress is doing,is lawful,unless the Supreme Court declares that it is unlawful . Even a journalist of CNN will understand this .
If there is no declaration of war(which is the custom since 1945),a war is only possible if Congress is giving money for the war ,thus the war is legal as long he is fought out .Even a journalist of Fox will understand this .

What you were ordered to say is irrelevant : the aim of the war was to eliminate Iraq which was considered as a dangerous enemy of the US .

About a "liberal" (haha) democracy (maybe you think that there are illiberal democracies):there are no moral justifications needed for a war,only a vote of Congress(and we all know that morality and Congress are not kindred spirits).Or wait, maybe you are thinking that the US foreign policy is something as an old western where the Duke is protecting children and women against the bad guys ?

Morality has no place in foreign policy,even a journalist of the Christian Science Monitor knows this .Only people as Wilson and Carter were thinking that morality should have a place in foreign policy,and we have seen the nefast results of such idioties,we also will suffer for many years from the same idioties of the present inhabitant of the White House .

The duty of the president of the US is to protect the interests of the US and of the people of the US, not to liberate Iraq,not to spread democracy over the world and other liberal idioties .

And ,as you are not a judge of the Supreme Court,your opinion about the unconstitutionality of the war against terror is not very relevant : in september 2001 the US were in danger,and the president of the US (a wise and brave man) asked Congress to give him the means (=the money) to eliminate the danger for the US,and the Congress gave him these means .
Everything Bush did was legal .(As was legal the deportation of the Japanese,japanese-Americans,etc in january 1942).If Bush had decided to deport the American Muslims to Alaska,and Congress and Supreme court agreed,it would be legal .

Originally Posted by lljadw

To remain on your level : only an idiot can think that a war in unconstitutional,because the reason for the war was a lie (which he was not) :every war the US were fighting was constitutional: unconstitutional wars do not exist .

For your information : the Constitution is saying that Congress is declaring war ,thus,what Congress is doing,is lawful,unless the Supreme Court declares that it is unlawful . Even a journalist of CNN will understand this .
If there is no declaration of war(which is the custom since 1945),a war is only possible if Congress is giving money for the war ,thus the war is legal as long he is fought out .Even a journalist of Fox will understand this .

What you were ordered to say is irrelevant : the aim of the war was to eliminate Iraq which was considered as a dangerous enemy of the US .

About a "liberal" (haha) democracy (maybe you think that there are illiberal democracies):there are no moral justifications needed for a war,only a vote of Congress(and we all know that morality and Congress are not kindred spirits).Or wait, maybe you are thinking that the US foreign policy is something as an old western where the Duke is protecting children and women against the bad guys ?

Morality has no place in foreign policy,even a journalist of the Christian Science Monitor knows this .Only people as Wilson and Carter were thinking that morality should have a place in foreign policy,and we have seen the nefast results of such idioties,we also will suffer for many years from the same idioties of the present inhabitant of the White House .

The duty of the president of the US is to protect the interests of the US and of the people of the US, not to liberate Iraq,not to spread democracy over the world and other liberal idioties .

And ,as you are not a judge of the Supreme Court,your opinion about the unconstitutionality of the war against terror is not very relevant : in september 2001 the US were in danger,and the president of the US (a wise and brave man) asked Congress to give him the means (=the money) to eliminate the danger for the US,and the Congress gave him these means .
Everything Bush did was legal .(As was legal the deportation of the Japanese,japanese-Americans,etc in january 1942).If Bush had decided to deport the American Muslims to Alaska,and Congress and Supreme court agreed,it would be legal .

You are fundamentally missing the point. Legality does not make it right. Everything that Nazi Germany did, Imperial Japan did, and Soviet Russia did was legal according to their law. Slavery and segregation were once legal in this country too. I guess that made it right because it was voted on by congress and agreed to in one form or another for almost 200 years. NO, IT WAS STILL WRONG!

Bush had done what was necessary to protect America by toppling the Taliban with the invasion of Afghanistan. Al Queda was almost completely destroyed during that fight. UNTIL WE INVADED IRAQ! Then, we validated everything UBL said about us and flooded the ranks of numerous terrorist organizations because, as you say, "we were attacked by arabs and Iraq was an arab country".

Explain to me how Iraq was a dangerous threat to the US...like seriously, how many ICBMs did they possess with chemical/biological weapons capable of hitting our mainland? How big was their Navy and was it able to protect an invasion fleet to attack our borders? Were we catching Ba'athist sleeper cells left and right that revealed an intricate and devastating plot to crush the USA as we know it? The answer is NO, NO, AND NO. Iraq had been neutered and didn't even have the capability in 2003 to hit Israel let alone the USA.

If the Iraq of 2002-2003 had you shaking in your boots then you are as gullible as a 5 year old child and a true chicken hawk.

"Morality has no place in foreign policy" Wow....just wow. So where and when do you apply morality? Like, do know what morality is? Seriously? How do you know when you should use morality and when you shouldn't? Why do conservatives disagree with abortion if it is legal? Why do they protest against gay marriage if it is made legal? By your logic morality doesn't even have a place in law. If that is the case then why get so bent out of shape about these "moral" issues?

If there isn't any morality in dealing with diplomacy, law, or war...why even bother with the facade religiosity, freedom, or democracy?

Despite any U.S.'s shortcomings I do believe we do support morality to a degree. It would be wrong to say that there is no place for morality in foreign policy. This would be like putting us in the same category as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Stalinist USSR.

Morality in an all out war cannot exist as in the fight with Japan and Germany the Bombing of Dresden and nuking Japan are good examples of that .

Originally Posted by tetvet

Morality in an all out war cannot exist as in the fight with Japan and Germany the Bombing of Dresden and nuking Japan are good examples of that .

Are we at all out war?

No.

But why do we keep seeing that as the only outcome in this Iran debate? (refocusing back on topic here)

This isn't 1945 anymore. There are no confetti parades and black people can use water fountains now.

Yes,there is an all out war.

Besides,"morality" as such does not exist : morality is varying geographically and following the time span : morality in Washington is different from morality in the ME and morality in 2015 is different from morality in 1915 .

The only solution to survive in this jungle is realpolitik,and there is no place for morality in realpolitik .

US intervened military when NK invaded SK in 1959,but looked the other way when Indonesia invaded Timor,because Indonesia was an ally .

US supported Britain in the Falklands war,but looked the other way when India invaded Goa in 1960 .The reason being that Britain was more important than Argentine and India more important than Portugal .

When there is a conflict between morality and legality, legality must prevail : take MyLai: if Calley had said during his trial that what he had ordered was justified following his own morality, the judge would not have accepted this .

Death penalty exist in the US but not in Europe where the liberal morality is prevailing that death penalty is wrong ,thus,in this case also,one can not use morality as an argument .Morality of most people is different from that of their neighbours,and the morality of John at 20 years will probably be different of the morality of the same John at 60 .

When I was young (in the old days ) I was partisan of some limited executions, now,my opinion is :a hanging a day keeps the rapist away,keeps the murdered away,etc .

In january 1945 GI Slovik was executed for refusal of obedience,while Calley got away with some years of prison . Was this moral ? The question is of course irrelevant : both judgements were legal and the discussion is closed .

Originally Posted by brinktk

You are fundamentally missing the point. Legality does not make it right. Everything that Nazi Germany did, Imperial Japan did, and Soviet Russia did was legal according to their law. Slavery and segregation were once legal in this country too. I guess that made it right because it was voted on by congress and agreed to in one form or another for almost 200 years. NO, IT WAS STILL WRONG!

Bush had done what was necessary to protect America by toppling the Taliban with the invasion of Afghanistan. Al Queda was almost completely destroyed during that fight. UNTIL WE INVADED IRAQ! Then, we validated everything UBL said about us and flooded the ranks of numerous terrorist organizations because, as you say, "we were attacked by arabs and Iraq was an arab country".

Explain to me how Iraq was a dangerous threat to the US...like seriously, how many ICBMs did they possess with chemical/biological weapons capable of hitting our mainland? How big was their Navy and was it able to protect an invasion fleet to attack our borders? Were we catching Ba'athist sleeper cells left and right that revealed an intricate and devastating plot to crush the USA as we know it? The answer is NO, NO, AND NO. Iraq had been neutered and didn't even have the capability in 2003 to hit Israel let alone the USA.

If the Iraq of 2002-2003 had you shaking in your boots then you are as gullible as a 5 year old child and a true chicken hawk.

"Morality has no place in foreign policy" Wow....just wow. So where and when do you apply morality? Like, do know what morality is? Seriously? How do you know when you should use morality and when you shouldn't? Why do conservatives disagree with abortion if it is legal? Why do they protest against gay marriage if it is made legal? By your logic morality doesn't even have a place in law. If that is the case then why get so bent out of shape about these "moral" issues?

If there isn't any morality in dealing with diplomacy, law, or war...why even bother with the facade religiosity, freedom, or democracy?

Slavery was legally right til it was abolished in 1865,segregation was legally right till the Supreme Court declared it illegal in 1954 .

There must be and can not be an opposition between democracy and the absence of morality in diplomacy and war .Only people living in a tower of ivory will claim that "morality" (something which does not exist) should rule diplomacy :in the 19 century,Britain was a democracy,but Palmerstone (the foreign secretary) declared : Britain has no friends,only interests .Diplomacy is a question of survival,and this can only happen by using pragmatism.

About gay marriage and such things : of course,one can try to change the law,but,as long gay marriage is legal,one should accept it .Legality must prevail to one's morality .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Slavery was legally right til it was abolished in 1865,segregation was legally right till the Supreme Court declared it illegal in 1954 .

There must be and can not be an opposition between democracy and the absence of morality in diplomacy and war .Only people living in a tower of ivory will claim that "morality" (something which does not exist) should rule diplomacy :in the 19 century,Britain was a democracy,but Palmerstone (the foreign secretary) declared : Britain has no friends,only interests .Diplomacy is a question of survival,and this can only happen by using pragmatism.

About gay marriage and such things : of course,one can try to change the law,but,as long gay marriage is legal,one should accept it .Legality must prevail to one's morality .

Then I think we are in fundamental disagreement and no amount of debate on the issue is going to resolve it between you and I.

I'd tend to the think that humans can rise to the occassion if challenged to, while others believe that humans will only sloop to the lowest level. A state may come or go based off the decisions it makeS People will always survive. "I was just following orders" was deemed unacceptable at Nuremberg, and is unacceptable to this day. If you think people like William Calley got justice under the law, and that it should be accepted...I don't know what else to say.

Technically, the men of Captain Medina's company were legal in everything they did at My Lai. They were operating in a Free Fire Zone where all the civillians had been "evacuated". They were expecting a Viet Cong battalion and the rules of engagements authorized them to act accordingly...why even make a distinction then? Why even have a trial in the first place? Had those pictures not been published the war would have gone on, business as usual...does that make it right? By the way you are sounding, the only thing they did wrong was get caught...

I guess your life is worth more than mine...

If there is no such thing as morailty is there also no such thing as ethics? How is it different if there is?


There will come a time, as it usually goes, when people stop accepting getting lied to and crapped on. When that day comes, it is usually the people who were "pragmatic" that end up strung by piano wire...food for thought.