Replies

I don't think it's a question any more of whether this is a just war. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.

Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.

Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?

"As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?"

As to democracy, 75% of Americans, including 50% of Democrats support this war.

As to the rule of law, Did ressolution 1441 have any meaning?

As to might makes right, perhaps not, but there are circumstances in which might is the only thing that can put things to right.

Had Neville Chamberlain used, and enforced, an ultimatum when Hitler started his adventurism instead of waiting until Poland was invaded, there would have been a much smaller butcher's bill.

War is never desireable, sometimes it is merely necessary.

(1) Bump to the indices so that others will have the opportunity to comment on your comment.

(2) Re "democracy" - You know what? This web site is called Free Republic because it is dedicated not to "democracy" but to freedom and especially to government that has a moral basis in electing moral representatives who can then make the decisions that need to be made including those necessary to protect the interests of those they represent, in a manner that does not encroach upon unalienable or constitutional rights. Democracy is MOB RULE. I do not believe in raw democracy, most Freepers do not believe in it, no surprise President Bush does NOT believe in Mob Democracy, and honestly neither should you. And if you expect Americans to jump in bed with the mob rule of the UN, comprised of a bunch of "countries" with various forms of generally dysfunctional governments often lacking moral underpinnings and representing essentially mob rule, then you don't really understand (or have forgotten about) these United States and Americans in general.

Our government's actions in Iraq decided upon and implemented through our existing system fit quite well with our laws and values and experiences. Moreover, we have the absolute right to self defense. Moreover, we also have the unalienable right as a country, if we choose to make the sacrifice, to defend the helpless. Nothing binds us to sit by and watch people be tortured and mistreated in the name of "international law." We do not have, nor for the sake of freedom do we want "global government" and accordingly, your so-called "international law" is VOLUNTARY, and subject at any time to being disregarded when it is at odds with our own government.

(3) You betray yourself with your question "does might make right?" Americans more than any country that has ever existed believe that the end does NOT justify the means. We have of course not been perfect on behaving that way, but we've done better than anyone else ever. But, IF WE ARE RIGHT, then your question is completely moot. And if you claim your question is NOT moot, then you have just stated that you think that these United States are wrong but taking what we want by force, and you could not be more wrong on that issue!

(4) If you sit by and watch one person abuse another in the name of an idealistic "international law" then what does that do to you? If fact, sitting by will CHANGE you for the worse, corrupt you, and make the "end" of "international law" justify the "means" of condoning torture; and when such inaction is demanded of a person who is not accustomed to tolerating abuses, it actually constitutes a form of attack upon that person. In other words, I feel attacked is someone tries to compel me to sit idle while a man unjustly and cruelly beats "his" child. There are times when the United States is essentially attacked if expected if expected by the UN and people with your views to sit on its hands and WATCH as a regime tortures its own people--just so that desensitized half-countries like France and those running in its UN mob won't be upset.

The US already in the name of "international law" puts up with enough abusive regimes, but when there is a concurrence of us being attacked by a country (remember 911?), us being threatened by a country, others being threatened by a county, and on top of that the people of that country being perpetually being abused by the tyrant who "owns" them, then how can you seriously continue to question the terribly difficult decision to respond to that act of war thrust before our faces by the Iraqi leadership?

I doubt I will answer any response from you because the points I have made above are basic orthodox American views and are not substantially arguable. However, others in the bump list may choose to address different aspects of your comment or to address any replies.

“Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.”

You’re assuming the ‘world community’ has benevolent intentions. That is a remarkably naïve position.

“Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.”

Perhaps 2.5 million people would not have died in Southeast Asia if the anti-war movement hadn’t helped facilitate American withdrawal from Vietnam. But we’ll never know.

“Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law. “

International law is a remarkably fluid concept at best. And you are assuming that the stated positions of foreign governments are their true positions. I would suggest that they have motivations other than genuine concern for U.S. and world security, or concern for the Iraqi people. France is an excellent case in point. We all know France’s opposition was more a power play and an attempt to prop up an ally in the Middle East, thereby increasing their influence in that part of the world, than any legitimate position on security.

“As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?”

Do you believe in representative democracy? The protestors sure don’t. And might doesn’t make right, but that doesn’t mean the mighty don’t have the right to use their power. This is a straw man argument.

Now give us some real game and provide a real argument. Thank you.

I don't think it's a question any more of whether this is a just war. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.

I doubt this is true. The US & Britain have 44 other countries supporting them. How many countries are backing Saddam and France?

Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.

After 12 years and 18 UN resolutions, all that was needed was another few weeks? How foolish.

The whole inspections farce was part of a delaying game. France, working for Saddam, was trying to delay the use of force until it was too hot in Iraq for us to attack. Would you be willing to done a chemical suit for a couple weeks at the hottest time of the year in the Iraqi desert? Oh yea, you’ll be in combat too.

Even the US & Britain can’t afford to keep 300,000 troops and equipment stationed on the Iraqi border for another 8 months waiting for the weather to cool.

Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law.

UN resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, the only (false) debate was what was meant by severe consequences. Saddam and France wanted it to mean double secret probation, not real consequences.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?

Is the UN the only place for democracy to take place? How is it democracy when only 5 nations have veto power?

As stated earlier, the US & Britain have 44 other countries backing them, it sounds to me like democracy has spoken.

I am happy to stand with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, I hope you are as comfortable standing with Saddam Hussein, a man know worldwide as an evil brutal dictator and madman.