Maybe more of a vent than debate.. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tenchi069 · 01-11-2007, 07:24 AM

mods, please move to the appropriate forum if this isn't it.

Lately I've been involved in more than one conversation involving the latest politics about the United States, George W. Bush, and our troops in Iraq. Too much I've seen and heard people verbally bash these three things. I am not of the type "Love it or get out," as I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, and giving my opinion I want to address these three things.

United States- (Fact) The country in which I was born and grew up in. (Personal feeling)I love it, will always love it. I will show my love for my country for flying my flag, speaking the official language of English, paying my taxes, obeying the laws, and protecting it with my life if need be. I make no apologies for any of the above nor will I stop doing any of the above just because it may offend someone.

George W. Bush- (Fact) current U.S President. Elected by majority vote according to the Electoral College.
(Personal Belief) I did not vote for him. I do not agree with all of his decisions. I do believe in the fact that while I do not necessarily sway toward President Bush's choices, he is still our President and I support the Office if not the man.

U.S. Troops on foreign soil- (Fact) there are U.S. Troops stationed in countries other than the United States.
(Personal Belief)The troops have made their choice to join the military at one point or another. They are fulfilling a contract that they by their various reasons, a choice that they made. They are now fulfilling the orders of their commanders, the Chief of which, by the laws of America, happens to be the President.

(My opinion to follow)
If you do not like the state of affairs, then do your job as an American Citizen or Legal Immigrant. Vote when and where you can, make the choices that put the wheels into motion to get the outcome you desire. Making your opinions heard is wonderful. That is our RIGHT of Free Speech. But I ask and implore you that while you are debating with your fellow countryman, do not degrade his values for supporting his country.

I wish peace to all, and mercy until it is.

-tenchi.

Chimera · 01-11-2007, 07:46 AM

Well stated.....and I fully agree.

Every citizen has the right, if not duty to "Be an American", and there is no one version of this title. Some will express loyalty to country as wholehearted unwavering support for government policy, and some will not.

Yet , both are as American as you and I.

shakran · 01-11-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenchi069

United States- (Personal feeling)I love it, will always love it. I will show my love for my country for flying my flag, speaking the official language of English, paying my taxes, obeying the laws, and protecting it with my life if need be.

English isn't our official language because we don't have one, but anyone offended because you speak english here is an idiot. I also don't see how it would offend someone if you pay your taxes, follow the law, and defend the country. Good on ya

George W. Bush- (Fact) current U.S President. Elected by majority vote according to the Electoral College.[/quote]

This is actually a matter for dispute in both elections. In fact in the first term he was not elected at all, but appointed by the supreme court. His second term may or may not have involved ballot cheating - we can't ever know because the electronic voting machines (that the CEO of the manufacturer promised would "deliver the state of Ohio for President Bush") are too easy to hack and don't have a paper trail.

Quote:

(Personal Belief)The troops have made their choice to join the military at one point or another.

Yes, and if i were in the military I, like most of the soldiers out there, would have joined because I feel defending my country is an important thing to do. I would not have joined so that I could help my country invade other countries that aren't doing anything to us - in fact this, in MY personal opinion, is anathema to everything the US should stand for.

Quote:

They are fulfilling a contract that they by their various reasons, a choice that they made. They are now fulfilling the orders of their commanders, the Chief of which, by the laws of America, happens to be the President.

Quite true - which is why we don't hold animosity toward the soldiers for the situation we're in now - - - that animosity is directed squarely at the idiot in charge. While this war is astonishingly like Vietnam in that we should never have gone there and now that we ARE there we're running it like a bunch of monkeys, the one main difference is that the soldiers are NOT being maligned by the general population.

Rekna · 01-11-2007, 08:23 AM

I would say one of the most American things you can do is to vocalize your dissent with policy when it occurs. American was not formed on blind patriotism. In fact one of the clauses of our founding documents states as Americans it is our duty to stand up to our government when it isn't fitting our needs. While one way of doing this is voting it is not the only way our founding fathers intended us to do it. This is why they placed free speech, free press, and arguably the right to bear arms into our constitution.

boatin · 01-11-2007, 10:37 AM

In the run up to this war, and the first few years of it, the bashing that I was the most familiar with was of the "you're an unpatriotic bastard for questioning this war" variety. I direct anyone to see the movie "Shut Up and Sing" for more details of how that went. For, you know, voicing an opinion.

While I agree with the theme of the OP, bashing goes in (and has gone in) two directions.

My personal belief is that being called unpatriotic for questioning things is far worse than anything that I see happening to the other side now.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 10:51 AM

I don't love my country any more than I love my car or my house or my hat. I pay for them, I am responsible for them, and I use them. I'm not sure what loving my country would entail, but I'm sure that I don't love it in the same way that I love freedom or love my family. I think that the idea of loving one's country can cloud one's ability to run said country, and the protective nature of that love can be used to control people.

George W. Bush stole 2 elections can should probably be serving a prison sentence. He has ignored people much smarter than he, and has made a fool of every US citizen repeatedly. We have lost athe respect of our allies, and we have lost many lives. Allowing him to serve as president has been one of our country's great follies, and our children will no doubt question our sanity one day for allowing this.

If we had good relations with our allies, we wouldn't need to have troops stationed anywhere but in the US unless we were attacked. Unfortuantely, we are in a dangerous cycle with the miliatary industrial complex controling much of military spending, which puts pressure on politicians to constantly be in a state of conflict or war. Tha constant state of conflict or war means that we need to streth our resources thin to deal with problems that we often start, and that we rarely fix. A proper democracy doesn't need to have military stations across the globe like an empire.

I do what I can to allow my ideas to take root in the minds of others, but nothing will be done to stop them unless people are able to rally behind a cause and see the resolution to the end.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

My personal belief is that being called unpatriotic for questioning things is far worse than anything that I see happening to the other side now.

Years ago I asked a lady I was dating if she would like to go conoeing down a river. She said yes. I told her what to expect and that it would be demanding. She said yes again. We rented a conoe, they drove us up river, and dropped us off, so we could conoe down river back to our car.

Not five minutes after the van left, she started complaining. It was too hot, it was too dirty, too many bugs, it is too hard. She said she didn't want to do this and that it was a mistake. After biting my lip, in my calmest voice, I said: look we are on this river together, there is no turning back, I am sorry I got you into this. However, complaining is not going to get you out of this conoe any faster. At this moment the best thing you can do is shut the hell up and row.

I see the Iraqi war the same way. Democrats gave Bush the authority to use force. As soon as he did, they started bitching and complaining. The difference is that the bitching and complaining gives comfort to the enemy making things more difficult. At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row.

shakran · 01-11-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Years ago I asked a lady I was dating if she would like to go conoeing down a river. She said yes. I told her what to expect and that it would be demanding. She said yes again. We rented a conoe, they drove us up river, and dropped us off, so we could conoe down river back to our car.

I see the Iraqi war the same way. Democrats gave Bush the authority to use force. As soon as he did, they started bitching and complaining. The difference is that the bitching and complaining gives comfort to the enemy making things more difficult. At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row.

Well the main difference is that you were honest in your parable about the lady. You told her it would be hard. You told her what to expect. You also told her you'd be canoeing on a river, and that's what you did. You didn't tell her you'd be canoing on a river and then took her rafting on the ocean instead.

Bush told us it would be easy. With SHOCK AND AWE we would roll over Iraq like a steam roller on the Pillsbury doughboy. We would be fighting the "terr-ists." We would be getting rid of the WMD's that we KNEW were there (they're between Baghdad and Tikrit said Rumsfeld).

Then we got there, and despite Bush having declared the mission accomplished, we're still there, getting killed every day, not having found one WMD or one terrorist who didn't come into the country after we destroyed the borders so as to LET them in. In short, while you told your lady friend the truth, Bush lied through his teeth, repeatedly.

And while you and she were canoeing down the river, you weren't secretly directing that all the other boaters be carted off to a hidden pond where they'd be tortured for years on end.

Bush, on the other hand, authorised a CIA "Extraordinary Rendition" program in which they fly suspected terr-ists and innocent people they just feel like questioning off to countries like Egypt, Syria, and Uzbekistan. There, as CIA interrogators look on, workers in those countries torture these people constantly - sometimes to the point of death. They're bent in half so they can't breathe. They're chained to the wall in a room that slowly fills with water until they nearly drown. They're beaten. Razor blades are used to make small one inch cuts all over their bodies, including the penis. They're fed rotten food and given only yellow, disease infested water, and that's only scratching the surface. If you think Abu Ghraib was nasty, that's not even half as bad as what the Syrians can dream up to do to you, and all while the CIA watches, under orders from the top - the president. (source for this entire paragraph, Ghost Plane by journalist Stephen Grey. Good read, but if you're at all human it will piss you off)

Now, if you seriously think I'm going to sit here and help row the boat that ferries innocent victims to the torture chamber, you're out of your mind.

filtherton · 01-11-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Years ago I asked a lady I was dating if she would like to go conoeing down a river. She said yes. I told her what to expect and that it would be demanding. She said yes again. We rented a conoe, they drove us up river, and dropped us off, so we could conoe down river back to our car.

Not five minutes after the van left, she started complaining. It was too hot, it was too dirty, too many bugs, it is too hard. She said she didn't want to do this and that it was a mistake. After biting my lip, in my calmest voice, I said: look we are on this river together, there is no turning back, I am sorry I got you into this. However, complaining is not going to get you out of this conoe any faster. At this moment the best thing you can do is shut the hell up and row.

I see the Iraqi war the same way. Democrats gave Bush the authority to use force. As soon as he did, they started bitching and complaining. The difference is that the bitching and complaining gives comfort to the enemy making things more difficult. At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row.

As far as i know (i could be wrong) neither boatin, nor the vast majority of the people generally reviled for not supporting the war ever voted to authorize the invasion of iraq.

In the context of your story these people would be akin to someone who never wanted to ride your canoe and, once in the canoe and complaining, are accused of hating nature.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 11:22 AM

After numerous UN resolutions, after countless speaches about the threat, the Bush administration laid out their concerns to the world and to Congress. He was clear and said it would be long and difficult. When Bush asked for authority to use force, no one can honestly say that they thought he was not actually going to use force. If they did ... what can I say.

I certainly understand complaints from people who have been consistently against the war from the begining until now. However, that has not been the Democratic party in Congress and has been a very small percentage of the American public.

Moskie · 01-11-2007, 11:30 AM

It is a difficult situation to reconcile. I firmly believe the way we engaged Iraq was a mistake (a belief I've had since the start of the war), but looking forward, I understand we hold a great responsibility to avoid a worst case scenario.

But at the same time, I want George Bush held accountable for the mistake. I'm not referring to impeachment, but just being held accountable in a political sense is good enough. I don't want to give him everything he asks for, whether it be more troops, more time, what have you. And I think people, in a sense, want Iraq to fail at this point as a way to hold Bush accountable for the initial mistake of starting the war in the first place. And I sympathize with that notion. What message does it send that a manipulative war-mongering president gets everything he asks for? Now, if the cost of seeking that retribution weren't what it is (countless Iraqi lives, vast instability in the Middle East, future terrorist havens) I'd be all for it. Others think the dangers of letting presidents like George Bush get away with what he's done is a greater price to pay. Again, I find it difficult to reconcile.

Ace.. we've discussed how I don't like getting wrapped up in metaphors before

but what if there's a waterfall at the end of that river? do you swim to the shore, or go careening off the edge?

And perhaps I'm just naive in my views of Congress approving the use of force in Iraq... but just because Congress gave him the OK, that doesn't equate to a free pass from being held accountable. What George Bush did with the military with Congress' approval, as commander in chief, is still his own responsibility. If things go bad, he should bear the brunt of that responsibility. Congress gave Bush just enough rope to hang himself. Whether he does, is up to him. (.... there's a Saddam/hanging joke in there somewhere, i just know it.)

host · 01-11-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Years ago I asked a lady I was dating if she would like to go conoeing down a river. She said yes. I told her what to expect and that it would be demanding. She said yes again. We rented a conoe, they drove us up river, and dropped us off, so we could conoe down river back to our car.....

Was the river in Egypt?

Quote:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...283155&s=books
State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III (Hardcover)
by Bob Woodward
(231 customer reviews)

dc_dux · 01-11-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

After numerous UN resolutions, after countless speaches about the threat, the Bush administration laid out their concerns to the world and to Congress. He was clear and said it would be long and difficult. When Bush asked for authority to use force, no one can honestly say that they thought he was not actually going to use force. If they did ... what can I say.

I certainly understand complaints from people who have been consistently against the war from the begining until now. However, that has not been the Democratic party in Congress and has been a very small percentage of the American public.

Even assuming all the above is true (but I would characterize it as mostly bullshit), why would reasonable, intelligent people continue to "row" for a leader who misled them at every opportunity since before the invasion, mismanaged and mishandled nearly every political and military turn in your "imaginary river" of Iraq since the invasion, and who is willing to throw himself and those who follow (including the loyal and courageous men and women in unform who cannot speak out) over the falls into the abyss for an ideological obsession.

mixedmedia · 01-11-2007, 11:55 AM

What does it mean if I think everyone on this thread makes good, valid points?

Political beliefs, in most of us, are closely associated with our core moral beliefs. Thus political discussion between people of different political beliefs often becomes emotional. No one likes to have their core moral beliefs poked at with an invalidating stick. It's a natural side-effect of the conflict of these kinds of ideas.

That said, I think the level of opprobrium and vilification in this forum is extremely mild-mannered and civilized. I've said it before and I say it again.

And that said, I think both sides often put their impulse to "be political" before the implementation of common sense and a desire to solve problems. At this time, our country is nearly paralyzed by this crippling phenomena to be sure.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moskie

Ace.. we've discussed how I don't like getting wrapped up in metaphors before

but what if there's a waterfall at the end of that river? do you swim to the shore, or go careening off the edge?

I would hope we could work as a team to reach our final goal.

On my date after a while she finally realized the situation, gave me the silent treatment and focused on rowing. She broke up with me afterward, but I did have to endure a mouthful on the drive home, which was o.k. because she needed to vent her anger. I think she started dating a guy who liked writing poetry and taking black and white pictures of flowers, I think she was much happier, so was I.

And perhaps I'm just naive in my views of Congress approving the use of force in Iraq... but just because Congress gave him the OK, that doesn't equate to a free pass from being held accountable. What George Bush did with the military with Congress' approval, as commander in chief, is still his own responsibility. If things go bad, he should bear the brunt of that responsibility.... Congress gave Bush just enough rope to hang himself. Whether he does, is up to him.[/QUOTE]

Here is a link to the authority given to Bush:

Quote:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Democrats who say they were and are against the Iraqi war voted in favor of this. Certainly Bush should be held accountable for mistakes, but it seems to me that you should hold all members of Congress equally responsible for us being in Iraq.

Also wars have peaks and valleys. At one point we were losing the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII, in those wars in paticular I am very happy we continued fighting. I feel the same way about the war in Iraq.

host · 01-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

After numerous UN resolutions, after countless speaches about the threat, the Bush administration laid out their concerns to the world and to Congress.....

ace, the invasion of Iraq was a crime of aggressive war....
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/83.html

Quote:

What happens now? The United Nations after Iraq
Thomas M Franck. The American Journal of International Law. Washington: Jul 2003.Vol.97, Iss. 3; pg. 607

I. WHO KILLED ARTICLE 2(4) AGAIN?

Thirty-three years ago I published an article in this Journal entitled Who Killed Article 2(4)? or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States, which examined the phenomenon of increasingly frequent resort to unlawful force by Britain, France, India, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The essay concluded with this sad observation:

The failure of the U.N. Charter's normative system is tantamount to the inability of any rule, such as that set out in Article 2(4), in itself to have much control over the behavior of states. National self-interest, particularly the national self-interest of the super-Powers, has usually won out over treaty obligations.

Should international lawyers guard their faith in such circumstances? Or should we cut our coats according to the cloth? Si non possis quod velis, velis id quod possis. Perhaps. But, then, for one dazzling moment in the 1990s, the end of the Cold War seemed to revive faith in the Charter system, almost giving it a rebirth. Now, however, in the new millennium, after a decade's romance with something approximating law-abiding state behavior, the law-based system is once again being dismantled. In its place we are offered a model that makes global security wholly dependent on the supreme power and discretion of the United States and frees the sole superpower from all restraints of international law.....

....The unlawful recourses to force, during the period surveyed in the 1970 essay, were accompanied by a fig leaf of legal justification, which, at least tacitly, recognized the residual force of the requirement in Charter Article 2(4) that states "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Then, the aggressors habitually defended the legality of their recourse to force by asserting that their actions, taken in response to an alleged prior attack or provocation, were exercises of the right of self-defense under the terms of Charter Article 51. Now, however, in marked contrast, they have all but discarded the fig leaf. While a few government lawyers still go through the motions of asserting that the invasion of Iraq was justified by our inherent right of self-defense, or represented a collective measure authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, the leaders of America no longer much bother with such legal niceties. Instead, they boldly proclaim a new policy that openly repudiates the Article 2(4) obligation. What is remarkable, this time around, is that once-obligatory efforts by the aggressor to make a serious effort to stretch law to legitimate state action have given way to a drive to repeal law altogether, replacing it with a principle derived from the Athenians at Melos: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."2

In this essay I will attempt to examine whether this neo-Melian doctrine will make any difference to the way the international system works, or whether our government, by dispensing with the lawyers' shopworn casuistry, is just being realistic in exposing the yawning gap between what states always do in their ambitious pursuit of power and what they are permitted to do by the fragile normative structure.....

....III. THE OPTIMISTIC 1990s

After the Soviet side of bipolarity crumbled, ....this could be brought about by rediscovering the Charter's founding principle: that force would be used only in self-defense against an actual armed attack; or after a threat to the peace had been determined by the collective decision-making process of the security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter; or, exceptionally, if the General Assembly, proceeding in accordance with the "Uniting for Peace" resolution,3 had determined the existence of a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."

For about a decade, the international system seemed to be moving in this direction, with Article 2(4) miraculously reborn in a post-Cold War order underwritten by a return to the law of the long-languishing Charter. This expectation was reinforced, and was facilitated by, UN-organized or -authorized military deployments in the first Gulf war, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Haiti. In 1989 the United States briefly reverted to the Cold War model by invading Panama and doing so under cover of a claim to be acting in self-defense. By and large, however, the decade after the Soviet collapse seemed to presage a resurrection of Article 2(4), albeit with some flexible adaptation in practice to reflect changes of circumstance.4

....on September 12, 2001, when the Security Council unanimously passed the resolution in reaction to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This resolution demonstrated not only the goodwill and collective wisdom of the Council as global decision-making forum, but also the flexibility of the Charter system in adapting old text to new exigencies. It construed the Charter-based right of self-defense to include authority to use force against nonstatal terrorist organizations, as well as "those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of . . . acts" of terrorism.5 Two weeks later, the Council created mandatory global controls to prevent the financing of terrorism and the recruiting of terrorists, while adding procedures for monitoring and enforcing state compliance.6 It appeared that the long dormant Charter rules regarding recourse to force not only were starting to revive-that I had reported their death prematurely-but were exhibiting an altogether-unexpected capacity to grow and adapt. In a rapidly changing world, the Security Council was proving itself able to interpret and apply the rules in such a way as to make them responsive to new dangers posed by nongovernmental terrorism and terrorism-harboring states, treating these as bona fide threats to the peace against which resort to force in collective self-defense is not merely necessary but also permissible.

IV. THE RELAPSE OF 2003

The invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, and a penumbra of policy statements made concurrently by the United States, have succeeded in changing all that. Article 2(4) has died again, and, this time, perhaps for good. This is no mere happenstance. At the cutting edge of U.S. policymaking today are persons who have never forgiven the United Nations for the General Assembly's 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism7 and who, despite its subsequent repeal, see the Organization as the implacable foe of Israel and the United States. The defanging of the United Nations has remained high on their agenda and the events of September 11, 2001, have created the opportunity to achieve that once-impossible dream. Thus has Article 2(4) taken another hit; this time, however, as part of a much broader plan to disable all supranational institutions and the constraints of international law on national sovereignty. If, as now seems all too possible, this campaign succeeds within the life span of the present U.S. administration, what sort of world order will emerge from the ruins of the Charter system?

V. DID THE IRAQ INVASION VIOLATE THE CHARTER?

Any prognosis regarding the future of world order must begin by addressing the question whether recent events have indeed had a transformative effect on the law of the international system and, if so, what that transformation portends. As in 1970, one must begin by making a clear-eyed appraisal of what has been happening. If the invasion of Iraq was nothing but an act of self-defense by the United States and its allies, or merely an exercise of police power previously authorized by the Security Council, these events would serve only to verify the continued efficacy of the Charter system. There would have been no violation of the cardinal principle of Article 2(4), as that no-first-use pledge is always subordinate to both the right of self-defense recognized by Article 51 and the right of the Security Council, under Chapter VII, to authorize action against a threat to the peace. If, however, the invasion cannot thus be reconciled with the rules of the Charter, does the invasion of Iraq constitute a simple violation of the rules-one of many and thus of no more legal significance than a holdup of the neighborhood grocery-or should it be celebrated as a deliberate and salutary move toward UN reform? Or should these recent events be understood, more apocalyptically, as the final burial of the Charter's fundamental rules? At this point in our analysis of the systemic significance of these events, it becomes essential to focus not only on facts but also on motives for action. Needless to say, this is swampy terrain; but one must try.

The invasion of Iraq can be positioned in each of these explanatory contexts, but just barely. It can be argued that the invasion was lawful (and thus neither violative nor transformative of the Charter). It can also be argued that, while the attack on Iraq may have been technically illegal, its transformative effect on the law has been wholly benevolent....

...The argument that recent events have not challenged, or have violated only de minimis, the Charter law pertaining to recourse to force is very difficult to sustain, although it enjoys the enthusiastic support of some American academics and the rather less enthusiastic support of State Department lawyers. Abroad, it has been advanced only by the British attorney general, supported by a prominent academic lawyer.8 As enunciated by Legal Adviser William Howard Taft IV of the Department of State, the argument has two prongs. The first is that the president may, "of course, always use force under international law in self-defense."9 The problem with that rationale is that, even if it were agreed that the right of self-defense "against an armed attack" (Charter, Art. 51) had come, through practice, to include a right of action against an imminent (as opposed to an actual) armed attack, the facts of the situation that existed in March 2003 are hard to fit within any plausible theory of imminence. This was a time, after all, when UN and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were actively engaged in situ in an apparently unrestricted search for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) undertaken with full authorization by the Security Council.10 Whatever the inspectors did or did not learn about Iraqi WMDs, nothing in their reports lends any credibility to the claim of an imminent threat of armed aggression against anyone. Indeed, the memorandum of the attorney general of the United Kingdom, while supporting the right to use force, wisely omits all reference to this rationale for its exercise.11

The second prong of the de minimis argument is more sophisticated than the plea to have acted in self-defense. It avers that the attack led by Britain and the United States had already been sanctioned by the Security Council. Essential to the success of this assertion is a creative, and ultimately unsustainable, reading of three Security Council resolutions-678, 687, and 1441-and of their "legislative history." According to Legal Adviser Taft, Resolution 678

was the authorization to use force for the Gulf War in January 1991. In April of that year, the Council imposed a series of conditions on Iraq, including most importantly extensive disarmament obligations, as a condition of the ceasefire declared under UNSCR 687. Iraq has "materially breached" these disarmament obligations, and force may again be used under UNSCR 678 to compel Iraqi compliance.

. . .Just last November, in resolution 1441, the Council unanimously decided that Iraq has been and remains in material breacli of its obligation. 1441 then gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that violations of the obligations, including the obligation to cooperate fully, under 1441 would constitute a further material breach. Iraq has clearly committed such violations and, accordingly, the authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear.12

The British government developed this same thesis, claiming that, by Resolution 678 the Security Council had authorized "Member States to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area" and that, while that authorization "was suspended but not terminated by Security Council resolution (SCR) 687 (1991)," it was "revived by SCR 1441 (2002)."13

This version of the meaning and intent of these three resolutions is highly problematic, and appears to have caused the resignation, on a matter of principle, of the deputy legal adviser of the British Foreign Office. Resolution 678 culminated a series of resolutions by the Security Council that condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, called for the immediate withdrawal of the aggressor,14 imposed mandatory sanctions on Iraq until Kuwaiti sovereignty was restored,15 and declared the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait to be null and void.16 In each instance, the purpose of the resolution was solely to liberate Kuwait. Only when these measures failed to secure Iraqi withdrawal did the Council in Resolution 678, citing Chapter VII of the Charter, "authorize[ ] Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait . . . to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."17

This sequence readily demonstrates that the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty was the leitmotif of Council action. That the authorization of collective measures by Resolution 678 additionally refers to the restoration of "international peace and security in the area" does not connote some expansive further mandate for contingent action against Iraq at the discretion of any individual member of the coalition of the willing. President George Bush Sr. acknowledged as much in explaining why the American military had not pursued Saddam Hussein's defeated forces to Baghdad.18 They were not authorized to do so.

The resolution, however, certainly does signal that Iraq was to be subject to further post-conflict intrusive controls: those imposed by the Council in Resolution 687, as part of the cease-fire. These additional obligations are made binding by reference to Chapter VII of the Charter and they were designed, implemented, and meant to be monitored by the Security Council as a whole, not by any individual member acting at its own pleasure. Resolution 687, sometimes referred to as the "mother of all cease-fires," is not only a binding decision of the Security Council, but also an international agreement between the United Nations and Iraq, made effective only "upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance" of the provisions set out therein.19 In legal form, then, as also in substance, this proviso manifests that it is the Security Council and the United Nations, and not individual members, who are the parties, with Iraq, to the cease-fire agreement. It is they who are entitled in law to determine whether Iraq is complying with its commitments to the Council, how long these are to remain in effect, and what is to be done in the event of their violation.

The obligations imposed by Resolution 687 are certainly onerous, and encompass everything that Iraq, thereafter, has been accused of failing to do. Baghdad had to agree to the verified destruction of its weapons of mass destruction and any industrial capacity to produce them, as well as of its medium and long-range delivery systems.20 Monitoring of compliance, both by a special commission to be created by the Secretary-General and by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, became mandatory.21 Baghdad was also required "to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory."22 What if Iraq failed to carry out these commitments to the Council and the United Nations? Clearly, this determination was to be made by the collective security process of the Organization. To ensure such follow-up, the Council, in Resolution 687, was "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."23 It would take further steps, not individual member states acting without further authorization.

Neither the text nor the debates on the adoption of Resolution 687 reveal the slightest indication that the Council intended to empower any of its members, by themselves, to determine that Iraq was in material breach. Much less can the resolution be read to authorize any state to decide unilaterally to resume military action against Iraq, save in the event of an armed attack. That deduction is supported by the architecture of the Charter. For the Council to have made a prospective grant of unilateral discretion to states to deploy armed force, in the absence of an actual (or imminent) armed attack, would have been an unprecedented derogation from the strictures of Article 2(4). At the least, to be plausible, such a derogation would have had to be explicit. Moreover, such a delegation of unlimited discretion to individual states cannot be assumed because it could not have been implemented alongside the Council's institution of an extensive system of inspections under its authority and control.

The UK attorney general cannot overcome these objections by an unsupported averral that a "material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678."24 As we have noted, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 extended exclusively to the liberation of Kuwait and to restoring peace and security in the region. In March 2003, the peace and security of the region did not require recourse to force, and the Council plainly did not think otherwise. What the Council thought is crucial. Resolution 687 would not have explicitly reserved sole discretion to the Council "to take such further steps as may be required for [its] implementation"25 if the Council had simultaneously intended to delegate that function to the sole discretion of member states.

Thus, neither Resolution 678 nor Resolution 687 helps Washington or London make a convincing case that they acted with, rather than against, the law. Nor are their difficulties in any way alleviated by Resolution 1441. While that instrument does deplore "that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687," it addresses that failure exclusively by deciding "to set up an enhanced inspection regime."26 Anticipating further Iraqi noncompliance, the resolution makes provision for the Council to be convened immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance . . . in order to secure international peace and security," and it warns Iraq "in that context . . . that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."27 It once again decides that the Council will "remain seized of the matter."28 The British attorney general somehow concluded from these words that even though the Council is to convene to "consider the matter before any action is taken," no matter what the Council does or does not do, "further [military] action can be taken [by a member] without a new resolution of the Council."29 From this he deduces that "all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."30 This conclusion is at best a creative interpretation. In fact, what Resolution 1441 did was to purchase unanimity for the return of the inspectors by postponing to another day, which the sponsors hoped might never be reached, the argument as to whether Resolutions 678 and 687 had authorized further enforcement at the sole discretion of one or more of the Council's members.

Perhaps to its credit, the Taft statement does not tread this tortuous path. Instead, it argues that since the Council had recognized several times that Iraq had committed a "material breach" of Resolution 687, recourse to force rested within the sole discretion of each Council member in accordance with the provision of the law of treaties on the consequences of such a "material" violation of obligations.31 This tack moves the argument away from a parsing of Council resolutions to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. But it is the United Nations, not the United States, that is the offended "party" to Resolution 687, and thus it is the Council, not the United States, that has the option under the Convention to regard the resolution as voided by Iraq's material breaches. Additionally, even if the United States were regarded as a "party" to the commitments made by Iraq in agreeing to Resolution 687, a material breach would not release Washington, as the offended party, from the obligation under the Vienna Convention "to fulfil any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it would be subject under international law independently of the [materially breached] treaty."32 That provision, it would appear, places the United States squarely back under the obligation of Charter Article 2(4), which, in the absence of any provision in Resolution 687 to the contrary, must be regarded as an essential part of its legal context and which requires states to abstain from the use of force in the absence either of an armed attack or of prior authorization by the Security Council.

These British and U.S. justifications do not fare well under close examination, however benevolent their intent to demonstrate compliance with the Charter. Consequently, the effect of those nations' unauthorized recourse to force against Iraq must be seen as either revising or undermining the provisions limiting the discretion of states to resort to force.

VI. A CHARTER REVISED

Well, if the Iraq invasion did not exactly conform with the law of the Charter, should it not, at least, be celebrated as a violation that has the capacity to reform the law and make it more realistic?

In international law, violators do sometimes turn out to be lawgivers. I have argued elsewhere that the Charter, as a quasi-constitutional instrument, is capable of evolving through the interpretive practice of its principal organs.33 That interpretive practice may sometimes be led by states with an interest in outcomes that cannot be legitimated by a narrowly originalist reading of the text. In such circumstances, violation shades into revision, sometimes to the benefit of the law and the institution charged with its implementation. The phenomenon is not unknown, also, to domestic law, though it occurs much more frequently in the international arena. The International Court has confirmed, for example, that the abstention of a permanent member of the Security Council in a vote on a substantive resolution is no longer to be taken to constitute a veto as a result of "abundant evidence" of members' practice to that effect.34 The Court reached this conclusion despite the text of Charter Article 27(3), which requires that substantive resolutions receive "the concurring votes of the permanent members." In a similar example of the interpretive power of institutional practice, extensive UN peacekeeping operations have long been based on an evolutionary reading of the Charter's imagined "Chapter 6 1/2." Nothing in the text actually authorizes these by-and-large salubrious activities. In recent years, too, practice has seemed to legitimate such humanitarian interventions as those undertaken by regional organizations in West Africa and Kosovo, even though they had not received the requisite (Art. 53) prior authorization of the Security Council.35 Further evidence of this important interpretive change is afforded by the Constitutive Act of the African Union, Article 4(h) of which recognizes "the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity," when such intervention is authorized by two-thirds of the members.36...

...the dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter. Seeking to close the gap between Charter norms and U.S. practice, she has proposed that the Security Council

adopt a resolution recognizing that the following set of conditions would constitute a threat to the peace sufficient to justify the use of force: 1) possession of weapons of mass destruction or clear and convincing evidence of attempts to gain such weapons; 2) grave and systematic human rights abuses sufficient to demonstrate the absence of any internal constraints on government behavior; and 3) evidence of aggressive intent with regard to other nations.37

Slaughter believes that other nations would agree to such an adumbration of Charter law because they would feel "stronger and safer" in an institutional system robustly able to address the global threat of terrorism and because such a reform, based on a reinvigorated United Nations, would open up "the only forum in which other nations can make their voices heard in deliberations with the United States." The United States and everyone else needs to recognize, she concludes, that the United Nations "is the forum in which a genuine multilateral decision-making process must take place."38

While it is altogether admirable to seek to make the invasion of Iraq an opportunity to strengthen the UN system, this analysis, alas, takes far too optimistic a view of what the administration in Washington and the governments of most other countries have concluded from this angry episode. For the Bush administration, it has underscored the danger of subordinating the policy discretion of the world's only superpower to the perceptions and interests of institutions in which other, mostly minor and sometimes venal, governments are able to project a degree of power entirely incommensurate with reality. This view is particularly troublesome when the issue pertains to a matter, such as international terrorism, that holds far greater interest for America than for most other governments. For almost all other members of the United Nations, on the other hand, the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated the folly of embarking upon any renegotiation of the rules pertaining to the deployment of force, however sensible, when they knew full well that Washington would ultimately apply the agreed standards unilaterally. That, to most states, was the message of Resolution 1441, which ultimately became the legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. As the British attorney general put it, agreed standards are a sound basis for multilateral discussion, but not for multilateral control over action. The world's governments, their advice on Iraq spurned, now understand that the sole superpower's administration is not in the least interested in rules, old or new, if they are to be applied case by case through "a genuine multilateral decision-making process." It has no intention of subordinating its sole responsibility for protecting what it perceives to be its national security to the judgment of others.

A "genuine multilateral decision-making process" requires the willingness of each participant to accept views, perceptions, and policies it does not share, but that prevail within the institution engaging in the process. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, it became clear that the overwhelming majority of nations-not, as some have said, just a power jealous President Jacques Chirac of France and the feckless Chancellor Gerhard Schroder of Germany-believed either that Iraq did not have a significant number of weapons of mass destruction or, if such weapons and the necessary delivery systems existed, that they could be found by the instituted system of inspections. Very few nations accepted that credible evidence could be shown of either WMDs or an operational link between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. This was a judgment call, pure and simple, and there are indications that the majority may have been right, and the United States and Britain wrong, as to both the evidence at hand and what to do about it.39 But the nub of the matter is not who was right and who wrong but who gets to decide what to do. The UN system did not "fail" because of differences of opinion about what to do if the facts were, indeed, as asserted by Washington. Saddam Hussein had no do-or-die defenders in the Council chamber. To the extent the Council can be said to have "failed," it failed because most states had "misunderstood" the role assigned to them under the Charter and the applicable resolutions. They expected, or naively hoped, to be the jury to which evidence and arguments as to the facts would be presented and that, collegially, they would then make the final decision about what should be done; whereas the British and U.S. governments took the view that, after the discourse ended, the decision would be up to them, alone. The problem is not one of devising new rules but of reaching agreement on who gets to apply them.

In essence, the Iraqi crisis was not primarily about what to do but, rather, who decides. There is an answer to that problem, of course, one clearly set out in Article 27 of the Charter. Through the veto, the United States, with the other four permanent members, has the right to block collective action and it takes frequent advantage of this prerogative. On the other hand, the Charter does not give the United States, or any other state, sole power to initiate action, except in response to an armed attack. While this deal may have seemed acceptable to America in 1945, it is apparently no longer satisfactory to the protectors of American preeminence. Nowadays, the U.S. government does not wish to be limited in this way. Thus, the invasion of Iraq is more accurately seen as a repudiation of the central decision-making premise of the Charter system than as a genuine opening to reform, unless by reform is meant the reconstitution of the international system along the lines of an American global protectorate.

This is a sad conclusion to offer well-meaning champions of the Charter system. Unfortunately, however, this is not a time for optimistic speculation about how to make the United Nations more responsive to new challenges. Rather, reformers need first to understand that the system stands in mortal jeopardy of being destroyed altogether. If, and only if, something can be done about that will there be another time to talk about improving the rules.

VII. REPUDIATING THE UN SYSTEM

The U.S. government (without, in this instance, the acquiescence of Britain) is out to disable the United Nations. Oh, yes, on its present tangent Washington will keep its membership, but primarily to block by its veto any action by others thought to be inimical to American interests. From time to time, the Bush administration may find it convenient to use the Organization to fix a famine, relocate some refugees, share some costs, even train a police force. What recent events make clear, however, is that the United States no longer considers itself subordinated in any way to the treaty rules that lie at the heart of the United Nations Charter. An anomalous situation therefore faces the Organization, which cannot expel a veto-bearing scofflaw state against its will, but which, in those circumstances, is doomed to encounter great difficulty in carrying out the wishes of its other members. Only three alternatives seem to offer themselves at present: the United States could change its policy, it could withdraw from the Organization, or the other members could withdraw to form a new system of international relations, a coalition of the seriously willing. None of these options are easy or probable.

Some see the present impasse as an opportunity to be rid of an international regime that is insufficiently responsive to both America's needs and the reality of our disproportionate power. The most creative of these "realist" intellectuals link the demise of the United Nations as a viable peace-and-security system to the invention of something more amenable to U.S. interests. But what? According to Michael Glennon, "Ad hoc coalitions of the willing will effectively succeed it."40 Really? Have we not already seen in the recent conflict what these ad hoc coalitions will look like: a sizable contingent from Britain, a few hundred policemen from Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria (at least until their nations are integrated into the European Union), a few soldiers from Australia and Albania, and good wishes from Israel? In practice, this prescription would require the United States to do everything alone, with Britain in tow at least until the next British elections-this in a world of rapidly intensifying animosity to almost all American projects.

To carry off such unipolarity, whatever its pros and cons, at a minimum requires a burgeoning economy and we do not have one. It also requires sociopolitical solidarity at home. To sustain such solidarity, a nation must be staunchly united. Yet, according to the eminent Republican economist Kevin Phillips, the social fabric was already badly frayed even before we began to shoulder the burden of this new global protectorate. In less than twenty years, Phillips has shown, the income gap between the richest 1 percent and the poorest 20 percent of the population has more than doubled, from a ratio of 30:1 in 1979, to one of 75:1 in 1997.41 Thus, there looms the specter not only of vast increases in the cost of foreign undertakings, but also of a radical shift in the bearing of that burden. The nation is about to reduce spending on basic needs like education, health care, and infrastructure by $100 billion. How much solidarity can one expect from parents with children in overcrowded, crumbling classrooms in which school lunches, computer training, and after-school enrichment programs have become a dim memory? How closely tied to the common enterprise can one imagine the overtaxed middle-class home-owners and white-collar workers in America's bankrupt cities to be? Have we so soon forgotten the experience of war at home when last we pursued the logic of preeminence in Vietnam?

Solidarity is also a matter of civic pride: how we, as a people, perceive our nation; and that is at least in part conditioned by how we are perceived by others. On September 11, 2001, every nation in the world voiced its support for us, sympathy for our tragedy, and willingness to join in the war on terrorism. Now, almost every nation regards us as the world's gravest threat to peace. Even in Britain, Spain, and Italy, nations whose governments sided with us over the war in Iraq, the publics overwhelmingly oppose America's assertions of unilateral power. This opposition is not based solely on our actions in Iraq. America, in its new reality check, has concluded that it need not accommodate the values and agendas of the world regarding the environment, land mines, or an international criminal court. Having recklessly separated us from both friend and foe, the standard-bearers of triumphal unipolarity have already realized half of their fantasy: we are, now, truly alone in the world. Saddled with so much animosity, we cannot possibly count on burden sharing as we seek to implement our national interest. The self-professed realists seem blissfully unfazed by this. They will come around. "Every major country," Professor Glennon says, "faces imminent danger from terrorism, for example, and from the new surge in WMD proliferation. None will gain by permitting these threats to reach fruition."42 In reality, however, few states regard themselves as directly threatened by terrorism in any of its present manifestations. On the contrary, they see cooperation with America, in its current mood, as an invitation to terrorist reprisal. If, up to now, they have supported American efforts to curb Al Qaeda, it is not because they regard themselves as its targets but, rather, because they have had a stake in the cooperative regime of UN collective security: the very thing Washington now seems determined to dismantle. If these states see supporting the United States as earning them a place on the terrorist hit list, but not a place at the diplomatic table where decisions on the war against terrorism are taken, few will apply for that hollow privilege.

At the heart of the debate about the future of American foreign policy is not this or that strategy toward one or another rogue regime. It is the role of institutions and law in policymaking generally. Glennon reflects the views of many in the current U.S. administration when he launches this bold assertion: "States are not bound by rules to which they do not agree."43 Significantly, he deletes the Westphalian concomitant: States are bound by rules to which they do agree. The United States, in full compliance with its own complex constitutional process, accepted the regime of the UN Charter, which includes limitations on the right of unilateral recourse to force. The states that opposed an armed invasion of Iraq did so not, as Glennon conjectures, because President Chirac wanted to restrict U.S. power but, rather, because they shared a widespread and still-credible belief that what the Washington policymakers had decided to do would make the problem of terrorism worse, not better. In refusing to assent to the U.S. strategy, they were responding exactly as the Charter intended. From the perspective of the policymakers, this dissonant response was unacceptable-not primarily because it hindered the Pentagon's strategy in this instance (it did not, except for the inconvenience of precluding a simultaneous invasion through Turkey), but because it reminded them that the United States remains treaty bound to an international regime that specifically forbids the unconstricted unilateralism Washington craves. While the usual U.S. response to such inhibiting entanglements is to reject the treaty, the administration understands that for the United States to withdraw from the UN system would leave its machinery intact but in the hands of others, an unpalatable outcome. Thus, we now see the effort to incapacitate what Washington can neither abide nor abandon.

VIII. THE BUSH SECURITY STRATEGY

The impetus to bring the postwar international regime to an end is broadly manifested in the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS), making it necessary, in this context, to make reference to it.

Discussions of the implications of U.S. action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq inevitably become enmeshed in analysis of this grouping of statements by President George W. Bush, published in September 2002 under the title The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.44 The NSS recapitulates and restates several presidential statements, delivered between September 20, 2001, and June 1, 2002, in which a focused effort is made to redefine the concept of self-defense as an entitlement in international law so as to take into account the exigencies of modern terrorism, including the possibility of nuclear attacks by nonstatal actors such as Al Qaeda. In these public pronouncements, the president declared that the United States would not await a first strike of incalculable consequences but would use force first, and if necessary alone, against those who would commit acts no responsible government could fail to preempt.

What is notable in the NSS consists of two related, but different assertions. The first is that we "cannot let our enemies strike first."45 To meet that threat, the president promises that "the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."46 To the same end, he introduces the concept of "anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."47 By itself, this seems a reasoned extrapolation of existing rights of self-defense. After all, the principle of anticipatory self-defense has been known to international law for almost two centuries and has gained a certain credibility, despite the restrictive terms of Charter Article 51. This credibility is augmented both by contemporary state practice and by deduction from the logic of modern weaponry.48 However, the president appeared in his statement to be exponentially expanding the range of permissible preemption, from that of the Caroline doctrine, which requires a "necessity of . . . self-defence [that] is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,"49 to something like a balancing of reasonable probabilities. Whether, and how wisely, this interpretation seeks to transform international law is debatable, even if it is widely acknowledged that a strict reading of Article 51 is no longer tenable in the face of modern terrorism and aggression. However, the implications do not end here, for there is more.

The president's second assertion is much more fundamental, although it received but passing mention. "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community," Mr. Bush said, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country . . . ."50 In this key sentence, he conflates an expanded, if perhaps necessary, concept of anticipatory self-defense with a militant and highly transformative assertion of a right by the United States to determine for itself whether, and when, the conditions exist to justify recourse to this expanded right. The sum of the two assertions is far greater than the parts, for, together, they set out the doctrine that the nation is free to use force against any foe it perceives as a potential threat to its security, at any time of its choosing and with any means at its disposal. This would stand the Charter on its head.

The point is a subtle, but important one. To the extent a state acts in "self-defence if an armed attack occurs," Article 51 of the Charter does, indeed, entitle it to decide, unilaterally, when and how to deploy military force. In that sense, Article 51 is unique in the Charter scheme, for it permits each state to decide for itself whether to use force, limited only by the conditionality "if an armed attack occurs." That terminology was intended to preclude the kind of bogus claim to be acting in self-defense that Germany used to justify its invasion of Poland in 1939. No such qualification applies to collective measures taken by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Notably, these provisions permit the use offeree against many kinds of "threats to the peace" that do not take the form of an actual armed attack. Such action, however, must first be authorized by the Council, as it was in response to such threats to the peace as the military coup in Haiti, the disintegration of civil governance in Somalia, and the humanitarian crises in the former Yugoslavia, Albania, and Rwanda. In each instance, the decision to authorize resort to force was made collectively.

In the case of Iraq, the Council, instead of approving the use of military force, unanimously, in Resolution 1441, authorized an extensive system of international inspections. Three months on, most states seemed to think this inspection regime was working well enough to obviate, at least for the time being, any further preemptive action. The presidential policy set out in the NSS seeks to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. It aims at ending all collective control over the U.S. recourse to force. This is not system transformation but system abrogation. Instead of the law of the Charter, we find an unabashed return to the Melian principle.

IX. WHAT CAN BE DONE?

It is not within the purchase of the lawyer to make, or to change, national policy. That, in a democracy, falls within the purview of the voters and their representatives. If the voters want the United States to play the imperial superpower, it is for the historians to warn of the discouraging precedents and for the economists to count the costs. It is for the press to portray fairly and fearlessly how that policy affects the people and societies at which it is directed.

What, then, is the proper role for the lawyer? Surely, it is to stand tall for the rule of law. What this entails is self-evident. When the policymakers believe it to society's immediate benefit to skirt the law, the lawyer must speak of the longer-term costs. When the politicians seek to bend the law, the lawyers must insist that they have broken it. When a faction tries to use power to subvert the rule of law, the lawyer must defend it even at some risk to personal advancement and safety. When the powerful are tempted to discard the law, the lawyer must ask whether someday, if our omnipotence wanes, we may not need the law. Lawyers who do that may even be called traitors. But those who do not are traitors to their calling. Ordinarily, however, the role of the lawyer is more positive: to help design the framework of rules, procedures, and institutions within which persons and peoples can live productively at peace with one another.

This may not be a moment in which that positive role can come to the fore, not a time when lawyers, particularly international lawyers, can flourish. In a sense, the "realists" are right. In the circumstances of the present power disequilibrium, it may be inevitable that those who have the power will sometimes seek to take advantage of it without much regard for such ephemera as respect for neutral and reciprocal principles. <h3>It is understandable that some politicians should behave in this way, but lawyers must not. Rather, they should zealously guard their professional integrity for a time when it can again be used in the service of the common weal.</h3>
[Footnote]
1 Thomas M. Franck, Who Killed Article 2(4)? or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States, 64 AJIL 809, 836 (1970).

[Footnote]
2 THUCYDIDES, THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR: THE COMPLETE WRITINGS OF THUCYDIDES 331 (Richard Crawley trans., 1934). The effort Thucydides describes, of a highly cultivated, relatively democratic Athens, destroyed in a futile effort to protect itself against every eventuality by attacking and securing the submission of all islands from which danger might emanate, is highly relevant to our times.

[Footnote]
3 GA Res. 377A (V), UN GAOR, 5th Sess., Supp. No. 20, at 10, UN Doc. A/1775 (1950).
4 Chief among these was a general, if still controversial, acceptance that self-defense could entail a right of first strike against an immediate and overwhelming threat of attack, and the use of force in egregious instances of the violation of human rights and humanitarian law. See THOMAS M. FRANCK, RECOURSE TO FORCE: STATE ACTION AGAINST THREATS AND ARMED ATTACKS 53-173 (2002).

[Footnote]
5 SC Res. 1368, pmbl., para. 3 (Sept. 12, 2001), 40 ILM 1277 (2001).
6 SC Res. 1373, paras. 1, 2 (Sept. 28, 2001), 40 ILM 1278 (2001).
7 GA Res. 3379 (XXX), UN GAOR, 30th Sess., Supp. No. 34, at 83, UN Doc. A/10034 (1975).

[Footnote]
8 The deputy legal adviser of the British Foreign Office, however, resigned in repudiation of this line of legal reasoning. Jimmy Burns, Anti-War Group Beset by Strategy Arguments, FIN. TIMES (London), Mar. 22, 2003, at 8. The British academic supporter was Professor Christopher Greenwood, who prepared an opinion for use in Parliament. Christopher Greenwood, Memorandum: The Legality of Using Force Against Iraq (Oct. 24, 2002), available at <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/196/2102406.htm>.
9 William H. Taft IV, Remarks Before National Association of Attorneys General (Mar. 20, 2003), excerpted at <http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/032129taft.htm>.
10 SC Res. 1441 (Nov. 8, 2002), 42 ILM 250 (2003).
11 Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General Clarifies Legal Basis for Use of Force Against Iraq (Mar. 18, 2003), available at <http://www.fco.gov.uk> (statement in answer to a parliamentary question).

18 The president said, "The U.N. resolutions never called for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. It never called for taking the battle into downtown Baghdad." 1992-93 PUB. PAPERS 568.

39 That the evidence adduced for the Security Council by the British and American governments was, at best, unconvincing and in part misrepresented and falsified is suggested by many commentators. See Paul Krugman, Matters of Emphasis, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 29, 2003, at A29; Nicholas D. Kristof, Missing in Action: Truth, N.Y. TIMES, May 6, 2003, at A31.

44 THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Sept. 17, 2002), available at <http.//www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf> [hereinafter NSS].

shakran · 01-11-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would hope we could work as a team to reach our final goal.

Mr. President? Is that you? You're ignoring the metaphorical waterfall, ignoring the safe alternatives, and continuing to advocate this nebulous goal, which you still haven't clearly defined and which, to stay with the metaphor, is drowning more and more people every day. Meanwhile the boat keeps hurtling toward the waterfall while you try to distract us from the roaring noise of our impending destruction.

This metaphor turned out to be extraordinarilly apt - you are reacting to it EXACTLY as Bush is reacting to the real world.

Moskie · 01-11-2007, 12:31 PM

I can agree with you on that Ace. I would just clarify that the President should still bear more, if not most, of the responsibility, simply because he is commander in chief, and members of the House and Senate are not. I do not give members of Congress a free pass either. If I were to list the pros and cons of a particular congressmen, voting for the war would go in the "con" column. It is not irrelevant. But that has less bearing on my overall opinion of them, than it does with the commander in chief. Perhaps that is just a personal preference of mine.

See, I don't believe that engaging Iraq was, definitively, a bad idea. With proper international support and valid exit strategy, getting rid of Saddam and his government would be A Good Thing, for many reasons. But circumstances being what they were, we did not have those going into the war, which is where my disapproval stemmed from the start. But, Bush claimed he could do it, and Congress let him try. It was a political, financial, and diplomatic gamble for all involved, to say the least. And it might be one that has no winners.

The worst part of Bush's speech, though, was the fact that he did very little to convince anyone (or me, at least) that his plan had a probable chance of succeeding. I got the distinct impression that Bush was treating this as a last ditch effort, that could very well not work out. That scares me.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Was the river in Egypt?

LOL

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Mr. President? Is that you? You're ignoring the metaphorical waterfall, ignoring the safe alternatives, and continuing to advocate this nebulous goal, which you still haven't clearly defined and which, to stay with the metaphor, is drowning more and more people every day. Meanwhile the boat keeps hurtling toward the waterfall while you try to distract us from the roaring noise of our impending destruction.

When you come to a waterfall, you portage the canoe. As a team we row to shore, pickup the canoe and carry it to a point past the waterfall, put it back in the water and continue.

Quote:

This metaphor turned out to be extraordinarilly apt - you are reacting to it EXACTLY as Bush is reacting to the real world.

Thanks for the compliment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Even assuming all the above is true (but I would characterize it as mostly bullshit),

I read this before from you. Perhaps you assume I spend my life in front of a computer, but like I said before, who cares. Personally I don't respond to what I think is bullshit. And I am getting better at ignoring personal attacks, but I have a ways to go. One improvement is that I no longer meet an attack with another. My mom would be proud.

Quote:

why would reasonable, intelligent people continue to "row" for a leader who misled them at every opportunity since before the invasion, mismanaged and mishandled...

If for no other reason, to get back to the car.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When you come to a waterfall, you portage the canoe. As a team we row to shore, pickup the canoe and carry it to a point past the waterfall, put it back in the water and continue.

Gotcha, so leave Iraq together before it's too late, bypass Iraq, then go on with our business.

Rekna · 01-11-2007, 01:10 PM

http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html

Quote:

sunk-cost fallacy

When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can’t stop now, otherwise what I’ve invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project.

To continue to invest in a hopeless project is irrational. Such behavior may be a pathetic attempt to delay having to face the consequences of one's poor judgment. The irrationality is a way to save face, to appear to be knowledgeable, when in fact one is acting like an idiot. For example, it is now known that Lyndon Johnson kept committing thousands and thousands of U.S. soldiers to Vietnam after he had determined that the cause was hopeless and that the U.S. could never defeat the Viet Cong.

This fallacy is also sometimes referred to as the Concorde fallacy, after the method of funding the supersonic transport jet jointly created by the governments of France and Britain. Despite the fact that the Concorde is beautiful and as safe as any other jet transport, it was very costly to produce and suffered some major marketing problems. There weren't many orders for the plane. Even though it was apparent there was no way this machine would make anybody any money, France and England kept investing deeper and deeper, much to the dismay of taxpayers in both countries.

In your analogy you have to continue because there is no way to leave, this is not the case with Iraq. We have methods to leave.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, the invasion of Iraq was a crime of aggressive war....

The victor of war determines its legality.
Winning a war requires aggression.

So what is your point, I don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Gotcha, so leave Iraq together before it's too late, bypass Iraq, then go on with our business.

Good one. Remind me to never go canoeing with you, we would get lost in the fog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html

In your analogy you have to continue because there is no way to leave, this is not the case with Iraq. We have methods to leave.

Not true. The most efficient way to get back would be to row. She could have swam, walked, ran, hitchiked, etc, etc. The best way to end the war in Iraq is to defeat the enemy because they will not stop fighting until defeated. even if we left, their war against us would continue.

Moskie · 01-11-2007, 01:49 PM

So.. the fog represents... Iran? No, wait, it represent the Jews, yea that's it.

This is where using metaphors quickly turns absurd. Different aspects of it mean different things to different people, so we all run around ending at different conclusions, each of us thinking we won the game.

I say we talk about Iraq.

dc_dux · 01-11-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

The best way to end the war in Iraq is to defeat the enemy because they will not stop fighting until defeated. even if we left, their war against us would continue.

You and Bush may believe the notion that we must fight them there so that we dont have to fight them here, but the majority of the American people know better.

Most of death and destruction now occuring in Iraq is not the work of terrorists with broader goals of attacking the US - Gen. Casey testified to that effect recently, noting that only an estimated 10% of the "enemy" are "terrorists" from outside Iraq. The Sunni insurgents (former Baathists) are fighting for their survival, the Shia militias (particularly al Sadr and his 50,000+ armed Badr brigade) are fighing for absolute sectarian control...and our military forces are in the crossfire. Neither group have designs or ambitions to attack us at home.

And, according to an NIE earlier this year, our invasion created and our ongoing presence in Iraq continues to create more potential terrorists in other countries in the Middle East and Europe with growing ant-american sentiments and ambitions.

Sen Durbin expressed it best in his response to Bush:

Quote:

"At the end of October, President Bush told the American people, "Absolutely, we're winning the war in Iraq." He spoke those words near the end of the bloodiest month of 2006 for U.S. troops.

Tonight, President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know: We are not winning in Iraq, despite the courage and immense sacrifice of our military; indeed, the situation is grave and deteriorating.

The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation. Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction. In ordering more troops to Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his own top generals. General John Abizaid, until recently the commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, and I quote, "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq, and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.

It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq, and the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, and we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America. And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government. We Americans and a few allies have protected Iraq when no one else would.

Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.

The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers.

As Congress considers our future course in Iraq, we remain committed on a bipartisan basis to providing our soldiers every resource they need to fight effectively and come home safely.

But it's time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon.

When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open- ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops, indeed, are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation."

The majority of the American people want us out, an even larger majority of Iraqis want us out, and even a majority of our forces on the ground in Iraq now want us out (or dont belive a "surge" will help). So who is really in a fog?

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Good one. Remind me to never go canoeing with you, we would get lost in the fog.

Lost in the fog > hundreds of thousands dead...

But seriously, this canoing trip was made to finish the trip, but what if you clearly have no idea how to stop? What if it's clear to canoing experts that you never should have canoed in the first place, AND you have no idea how to canoe, AND people are losing their lives because of it?

roachboy · 01-11-2007, 02:20 PM

while the unfolding of the implications of the canoe trip analogy ace was kind enough to venture earlier seems a potential thread in itself, i wanted just to respond to the op for a minute...

i dont see anything wrong with debate--including often passionate-to-snippy debate--amongst folk about the course the present administration has embarked on in iraq. i have never understood--and still do not understand--anything about what i think is still best characterized as the busby berkley school of political debate-you know, "come on, kids, let's all pull together as a team and put on a really great musical..." as if:
(a) fundamental disagreement is somehow a problem in politics (it isnt)
(b) power in any meaningful way resides with the people in the united states (it doesnt) such that there is any direct correlation between what "the people" want and how political power is exercized. last night's new course speech from the Dear Leader would have been impossible were there any such connection, for example. it aint like that: we the people have indirect power one day every two years, and really one day every 4 years.
(c) there is no coherent notion of the "national will" that you can appeal to either in order to cement the argument that we all need to pull together in the same way in order to make of this wreckage a happy, shiny musical. democracies are characterized by the diversity of viewpoints--even a shallow one like the american version requires it if it is to be healthy. so i would think that vigorous debate would be understood as a hopeful sign in itself, even if it happens in spaces that could notbe more removed from actual power like this one.
(d) i have never been persuaded that there is any single agreed upon way to define what working in the common interest looks like. i would think that principled dissent IS a way of trying to work for the common interest. so from my viewpoint, the idea that we all need to hold hands and sway together in the same way around a campfire so that the whole edifice does not collapse is just narcissism. so i see no problem at all with any and all modes of opposition to the war in iraq, say--not in principle at least (the contents of actual arguments are what really matter in any event)--nor in principle do i have a particular problem with such support as there is for it--but i also have no hesitation to say that i think the folk who support this war are somewhere been misinformed and wrong--and i see nothing about that which would indicate one way or another whether i (or anyone else) did or did not want the best for the united states--where i live too--across such debates. there are simply disagreements about what constitites the best for this place, just as there are disagreements about how this place is as over against how it culd be, and how the world it dominates is as over against how it could be.

for myself, i simply do not accept that the present state of affairs is the best that we--or anyone--could do.
if by thinking that way in general, it means that in the eyes of some i do not want to participate in the higher calling of putting on a musical, then so be it: but that it a judgment that comes entirely from how the sentences are read, and so refers to the reader, rather than from any coherent understanding of how is intended when the sentences are written.

civility is another matter: another way of reading the op is as another call for civlity. same arguments as above could apply to this--there is no reason that civility should be used as a wedge to exclude positions, as if by saying x you are a priori not being civil. on the other hand, i think most who play here have found that it is more functional to take some of the edge off the posts we make from time to time. and that sometimes this editing is more successful than others. goes with the territory, i think.

my my, wasnt that fun?
yes, madge, it was fun.

dc_dux · 01-11-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I see the Iraqi war the same way. Democrats gave Bush the authority to use force. As soon as he did, they started bitching and complaining. The difference is that the bitching and complaining gives comfort to the enemy making things more difficult. At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row.

I wonder how many Republicans will not shut the f*** up and will join with the majority of the country and stop "rowing".

Quote:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
I think what the president said last night — and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning — is all about a broadened American involvement — escalation — in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation.

And I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madam Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control; Iraqi on Iraqi.

Worst, it is inner-sectarian violence; Shia killing Shia.

To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.

It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong.

So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam — if it’s carried out.

I will resist it.
***
Sen. Norm Coleman (R, MN)
“[Coleman] said today after a two-day trip to Iraq that he would not support an increase in the number of soldiers in Baghdad. He said he would ’stand against’ any effort to send a surge of more troops to Baghdad unless there’s a clear vision that it will help end sectarian violence in the city. ‘I think it would create more targets. I think we would put more life at risk,’ he said.”
***
Sen. Kit Bond (R, MO)
“What good is that going to do? I have seen nothing so far that would push me to think a surge is a good idea.”
***
Sen. Susan Collins (R, ME)
“‘I don’t think the addition of new American troops in a situation plagued by sectarian strife is the answer,’ Collins said. ‘I think more American troops will present more American targets.’
***
Sen. Gordon Smith (R, OR)
“I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more. I believe we need to figure out not just how to leave Iraq but how to fight the War on Terror and to do it right.”
***
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R, ME)
“After almost a year, the Iraqi government has yet to disarm the militias, establish oil revenue sharing or conduct provincial elections,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican, in an e-mailed statement.
Snowe added: “We should not place more American servicemen and women in harm’s way to instill a peace that the Iraqis are not willing to seek for themselves.”
***
Sen. George Voinovich (R, OH)
“At this point I am skeptical that a surge in troops alone will bring an end to sectarian violence and the insurgency that is fomenting instability in Iraq,” Voinovich said. “The generals who have served there do not believe additional troops alone will help. And my faith in Prime Minister al-Maliki’s political will to make the hard choices necessary to bring about a political solution is fragile at best.
***
Sen. John Warner (R, VA)
“An ‘undefined surge concept is one that I would have to see a lot of strong rationale before I could support it,’ said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. ...the former chairman also paraphrased the testimony of Army Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. forces in the region, before the committee last November, stating that the general did not believe that additional U.S. troops in Iraq would necessarily help the situation on the ground.”

Perhaps the "rowing" should be more aptly described as "flapping their arms in the wind", risking more American lives and getting nowhere

"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind"

mixedmedia · 01-11-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i have never understood--and still do not understand--anything about what i think is still best characterized as the busby berkley school of political debate-you know, "come on, kids, let's all pull together as a team and put on a really great musical..."

I've seen you make that reference before and I assumed you were talking about some great kaleidoscopic political distraction, that when one had the curiosity to examine more closely, turned out to be just a bunch of rather cut-rate looking showgirls, errrr, I mean, politicians lying on the floor and moving their arms and legs around.

But seriously, I don't think the opinion that we should pull together to find a workable solution to the quagmire in Iraq necessarily means being cheerleaders for Bush & co. I certainly am not. But I also believe that we have a vested interest in, no, I'm starting to hate that word - interest, we have a responsibility for the future of Iraq that we didn't have before. And it's not going to go away even if we pulled all of our troops out tomorrow. I'm of the opinion that "unilaterally" pulling our troops out of Iraq would be just as damaging to us and to our reputation as our invasion has been. And I'm not at all at ease with the idea of abandoning them to decades of intractable civil war. This shouldn't be an easy bit of mathematics for any liberal. It is not only an American "hot-button" political issue. To treat it like it is also a narcissistic exercise in one-dimensional navel-gazing. Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be debate and, fuck yes, passionate debate! But I also think people should strive to break free from their ideological and political constraints - often and with great courage.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You and Bush may believe the notion that we must fight them there so that we dont have to fight them here, but the majority of the American people know better.

Most of death and destruction now occuring in Iraq is not the work of terrorists with broader goals of attacking the US - Gen. Casey testified to that effect recently, noting that only an estimated 10% of the "enemy" are "terrorists" from outside Iraq. The Sunni insurgents (former Baathists) are fighting for their survival, the Shia militias (particularly al Sadr and his 50,000+ armed Badr brigade) are fighing for absolute sectarian control...and our military forces are in the crossfire. Neither group have designs or ambitions to attack us at home.

The CIA in '05 reported on the problem in a manner on the surface supports the position that our presence has exacerbated the problem. I am not sure where you stand, either Iraq is or is not the central point in the war on terror. In my view Iraq is attracting those who want to make war against the western world not creating them. If Iraq is the central point, Iraq is a problem and we need to be there. If Iraq is not the central point for the war on terror, I agree we have made a grave error.

Quote:

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html

Quote:

And, according to an NIE earlier this year, our invasion created and our ongoing presence in Iraq continues to create more potential terrorists in other countries in the Middle East and Europe with growing ant-american sentiments and ambitions.

I ask the question, why would that be true? Have you wondered the same? Personally I think we have attempted to handle this conflict in the best possible way. Are we hated because we fight for the freedom of others as well as our own? Are we hated because we removed an evil dictator? Are we hated because we support Isreal?

Quote:

Sen Durbin expressed it best in his response to Bush:

Sen Durbin wants to re-deploy the troops, or bring them back home. I do to. I want to do it after we get Iraq under control. Under no circumstances do I want to leave the impression that we left Iraq unwilling to confront the chaos and the civil war we are in-part responsible for, I agree with Powel - we broke it, we must fix it.

Quote:

The majority of the American people want us out,

Just for the record. No one wants to be involved in a war. However, those of us who support the war in Iraq see it as somthing that needs to be done. In my view we will fight the war 1,000 times if we pretend we are not at war, or we will fight it once. We failed in the first Gulf War because we did not finish the fight, I hope we don't make the same mistake again.

Quote:

an even larger majority of Iraqis want us out,

Who is doing surveys of what the people in Iraq want? We do know about the millions who participated in the formation of their government. I don't doubt that they want us out and that they want peace. I bet the response to the "survey" would be based on how the questions were asked.

Quote:

and even a majority of our forces on the ground in Iraq now want us out (or dont belive a "surge" will help).

There can be only one commander-in-chief. Again, a man or woman away from home, family and friends, if asked, would obviously want to come home. Again, I bet the way the question is asked would determine the tone of the response.

Quote:

So who is really in a fog?

I am. I can admit this is a complicated issue with no easy answers. If everything is clear to you - you have my compliments, and I suggest you use your talents to help lead the way.

dc_dux · 01-11-2007, 04:14 PM

I am using my talents by not shutting the f*** up.

.

To suggest such a solution ("At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row") is anti-democratic and stiffles a healthy debate.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I ask the question, why would that be true? Have you wondered the same? Personally I think we have attempted to handle this conflict in the best possible way. Are we hated because we fight for the freedom of others as well as our own? Are we hated because we removed an evil dictator? Are we hated because we support Isreal?

We are hated for a shitload of stuff going back for generations. Basically, we are hated for mass murder and colonialism, but it's a lot more complicated in reality. It should be made clear, though, that we are not now, nor have we ever fought for the freedom of the Iraqi civilians. We are not there to help them. I hope that was made clear as Bagdad burned in the bullshit "Shock and Awe campaign", as civilian's homes were broken into night after night with no warrant, as the civilians in Falujah were burned alive with illegal white phospherous.

We, actually meaning the US government and military, are hated because we have never been anything but an enemy to these people. We make promises of freedom and help them fight their wars, while all along using them and not actually helping them at all. As we supplied Iraq and Iran with weapons and intel to be used against each other, we ewre simply using them for our own ends, to the detriment of stability in the ME and the loss of so many lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just for the record. No one wants to be involved in a war. However, those of us who support the war in Iraq see it as somthing that needs to be done. In my view we will fight the war 1,000 times if we pretend we are not at war, or we will fight it once. We failed in the first Gulf War because we did not finish the fight, I hope we don't make the same mistake again.

That's not actually true. The PNAC were planning a war of aggression years ahead of time, and had every intention of starting that war despite what the intelligence community was ACTUALLY saying at the time. When you handpick evidence and trust untrustworthy sources to start a war, it's clear that you actually WANT a war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There can be only one commander-in-chief. Again, a man or woman away from home, family and friends, if asked, would obviously want to come home. Again, I bet the way the question is asked would determine the tone of the response.

Actually, we'd function a lot better without the office of president. Yes, it's important to have a figurehead, but giving one man that much power is a foolish thing to do. That any one man can declair war is madness. I don't recognise Bush as president, anyway, as I've seen enough evidence to be certian that the 200 election was stolen. Unfortunately, Inconvenient Al was not hungry enough and we've all suffered.

aceventura3 · 01-11-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I wonder how many Republicans will not shut the f*** up and will join with the majority of the country and stop "rowing".

My position won't change. I would say the same about Republicans. Republincan's don't have the same history and level of hypocracy as do Democrats. If this was just a question of debating troop levels, I would join the debate on that subject, but we are still debating being in the war.

Quote:

Perhaps the "rowing" should be more aptly described as "flapping their arms in the wind", risking more American lives and getting nowhere

"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind"

I really don't respect Democratic leadership wanting to wait for poll results before laying out a specific alternative to Bush's plan. Given the circumstances why haven't they started their hearings? Is there anything more imortant today, right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

To suggest such a solution ("At this point Democrats need to shut the f*** up and help row") is anti-democratic and stiffles a healthy debate.

Only the weak minded would be stiffled by my comment. However, wise people know when to row and know when to talk.

dc_dux · 01-11-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

But seriously, I don't think the opinion that we should pull together to find a workable solution to the quagmire in Iraq necessarily means being cheerleaders for Bush & co. I certainly am not. But I also believe that we have a vested interest in, no, I'm starting to hate that word - interest, we have a responsibility for the future of Iraq that we didn't have before. And it's not going to go away even if we pulled all of our troops out tomorrow. I'm of the opinion that "unilaterally" pulling our troops out of Iraq would be just as damaging to us and to our reputation as our invasion has been. And I'm not at all at ease with the idea of abandoning them to decades of intractable civil war. This shouldn't be an easy bit of mathematics for any liberal. It is not only an American "hot-button" political issue. To treat it like it is also a narcissistic exercise in one-dimensional navel-gazing. Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be debate and, fuck yes, passionate debate! But I also think people should strive to break free from their ideological and political constraints - often and with great courage.

Absolutely. I agree we have a moral obligation that requires something other than pulling out unilaterally, just not more of the same failed tactics and strategies. IMO, we should be working diplomatically much more aggressively and with much greater urgency to bring the regional powers (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and even Iran/Syria) in to create a "stabilizing force" under the auspices of the Arab League to replace US forces.

If we had skilled diplomats and not ideologues conducting our diplomacy, (ie, someone like Colin Powell who was fired for not being an ideologue), perhaps we could convince them that it is in the interest of every country in the region to remove the US face of occupation...and we can begin to draw down in the coming months as they take our place, with limited US forces to continue training the Iraqis.

Quote:

wise people know when to row and know when to talk.

Wise people know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em

And btw, the Dems started hearings today. It was reasonable and respectful to wait for the President to present his "plan" as Commander in Chief, and the self-admitted person responsible for the failures to-date.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Only the weak minded would be stiffled by my comment. However, wise people know when to row and know when to talk.

Only the wise are trying to row towards the shore.

Confucius say, "The weak minded canoer rows hardest before the waterfall."

mixedmedia · 01-11-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Absolutely. I agree we have a moral obligation that requires something other than pulling out unilaterally, just not more of the same failed tactics and strategies. IMO, we should be working diplomatically much more aggressively and with much greater urgency to bring the regional powers (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and even Iran/Syria) in to create a "stabilizing force" under the auspices of the Arab League to replace US forces.

If we had skilled diplomats and not ideologues conducting our diplomacy, (ie, someone like Colin Powell who was fired for not being an ideologue), perhaps we could convince them that it is in the interest of every country in the region to remove the US face of occupation...and we can begin to draw down in the coming months as they take our place, with limited US forces to continue training the Iraqis.

I agree with you. We should be making much more effort in engaging regional resources in Iraq. And I'd go so far as to say especially Iran and Syria. If we can come away from this fiasco with Iraq being at least on the road to being a better, freer, more democratic nation than it was when we entered it AND engage Iran and Syria in the making of it? Pish, that would be just the kind of unbelievably ironic scenario that just might make the initial nightmare...not worth it...can't think of the word...politically salvagable. Although that's not it, either. Maybe you get my drift. I understand the push for and the efficacy of democratizing the middle east. And it's not all about the finite resource of OIL. It's also about security, not just for us, but for our whole little world, too. And if you are concerned about human rights, you don't have to look far to see that it is about human rights, too. It's about opportunity. It's about the global marketplace and free and open access to it. Not only the rich benefit from these things.

Ahhhh, but I tend to get all teary-eyed and optimistic about these things. But I want it to turn out as well as possible for the people it really matters to. No matter whose legacy will benefit from it.

Which brings up another thing. GWB & friends only have two years left in the White House. After that, this mess is going to be left up to somebody else to fix. If it's going to be the Democrats, well, that's a pretty daunting challenge for us to face (I am still a registered Democrat, after all

). And I will be pretty dismayed if we spend the following four years pointing our fingers at GW's back...just like the conservatives did with Clinton like...yesterday, for crying out loud.

I want answers, goddammit! Do the Democrats have them?

ratbastid · 01-11-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Thanks for the compliment.

That's the thing, right there. I couldn't help but notice, today, that the poll numbers indicate strongly that the "surge" has the same percentage of support as Bush's current approval rating. Guess what: it's the same people!

My theory is, either you're in the 27-30% of American who think that because you're an Ammurkin, you owe fealty to your Pres'dent, who's out being macho and fighting the terrists, or you know that patriotism calls for something more than blind obedience, and you give the president and his policies the skepticism that is their due.

Re the OP: I decline to participate in the delusion that the nation of my citizenship requires my support of the current holder of "the office of President". I have plenty of respect for the office--enough that I want this bumbling jingoistic frat boy OUT of it. One question: did you feel that way when Clinton was in office?

dksuddeth · 01-11-2007, 08:05 PM

not sure who's trying to fool who, but anyone with a brain should realize that this country is dead. It is not the USA that was created by the revolutionary war. It is not the country that existed prior to the civil war. Hell, it's not even the country that existed after the civil war. The socialists/communists have won. freedom is dead. quit your bitching and revel in the downfall most of you helped to create.

shakran · 01-11-2007, 08:54 PM

yeah, we get it dks, you can't have a tank so we've destroyed the bill of rights and freedom has been flushed down the toilet. That's getting old, to be honest.

as far as answers, mixedmedia, there are no good answers. This situation is unwinnable. We pull out, we're screwed. We stay there, we're screwed. Fact is, Bush has gotten us into one HELL of a mess, and there is absolutely NO course of action we can take at this point that will be palatable.

Given that, we should leave. Now. We can't do any good there, at least we can save a few soldier's lives.

Willravel · 01-11-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not sure who's trying to fool who, but anyone with a brain should realize that this country is dead. It is not the USA that was created by the revolutionary war. It is not the country that existed prior to the civil war. Hell, it's not even the country that existed after the civil war. The socialists/communists have won. freedom is dead. quit your bitching and revel in the downfall most of you helped to create.

So Bush is a socialist, eh?

DK, all gun debates aside, what you just said makes absolutely no sense and is frighteningly similar to what McCarthy would say if he were alive today. Communism fell in the former Soviet Union 20 years ago. Democracy ultimately lost when capitolism was embraced, but where we are now is the opposite of socialism. If you want to see a more socialist democracy in action, one only needs to look north. The socalists, like myself, have lost time and again, but we still believe that we can exist as a higher and more altruistic society and we push so hard. I know that socalism won't really take root here for a while, but I'm willing to wait and do what I can to help in the meintime. The funny thing is, as bad as things get, most people are onestly good. Lazy, sure. Complacent, probably. People ultimately want to do the right thing.

The socalists and communists are a fringe part of the democratic party, and a majority of the green party....so how could they possibly have won anything?

01-11-2007, 07:24 AM	#1 (permalink)
tenchi069 Lost Location: One step closer to the padded cell...	Maybe more of a vent than debate.. mods, please move to the appropriate forum if this isn't it. Lately I've been involved in more than one conversation involving the latest politics about the United States, George W. Bush, and our troops in Iraq. Too much I've seen and heard people verbally bash these three things. I am not of the type "Love it or get out," as I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, and giving my opinion I want to address these three things. United States- (Fact) The country in which I was born and grew up in. (Personal feeling)I love it, will always love it. I will show my love for my country for flying my flag, speaking the official language of English, paying my taxes, obeying the laws, and protecting it with my life if need be. I make no apologies for any of the above nor will I stop doing any of the above just because it may offend someone. George W. Bush- (Fact) current U.S President. Elected by majority vote according to the Electoral College. (Personal Belief) I did not vote for him. I do not agree with all of his decisions. I do believe in the fact that while I do not necessarily sway toward President Bush's choices, he is still our President and I support the Office if not the man. U.S. Troops on foreign soil- (Fact) there are U.S. Troops stationed in countries other than the United States. (Personal Belief)The troops have made their choice to join the military at one point or another. They are fulfilling a contract that they by their various reasons, a choice that they made. They are now fulfilling the orders of their commanders, the Chief of which, by the laws of America, happens to be the President. (My opinion to follow) If you do not like the state of affairs, then do your job as an American Citizen or Legal Immigrant. Vote when and where you can, make the choices that put the wheels into motion to get the outcome you desire. Making your opinions heard is wonderful. That is our RIGHT of Free Speech. But I ask and implore you that while you are debating with your fellow countryman, do not degrade his values for supporting his country. I wish peace to all, and mercy until it is. -tenchi. __________________ ERROR- PLBSAK Problem Lies Between Seat and Keyboard.

01-11-2007, 11:22 AM	#10 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	After numerous UN resolutions, after countless speaches about the threat, the Bush administration laid out their concerns to the world and to Congress. He was clear and said it would be long and difficult. When Bush asked for authority to use force, no one can honestly say that they thought he was not actually going to use force. If they did ... what can I say. I certainly understand complaints from people who have been consistently against the war from the begining until now. However, that has not been the Democratic party in Congress and has been a very small percentage of the American public. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-11-2007, 11:30 AM	#11 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	It is a difficult situation to reconcile. I firmly believe the way we engaged Iraq was a mistake (a belief I've had since the start of the war), but looking forward, I understand we hold a great responsibility to avoid a worst case scenario. But at the same time, I want George Bush held accountable for the mistake. I'm not referring to impeachment, but just being held accountable in a political sense is good enough. I don't want to give him everything he asks for, whether it be more troops, more time, what have you. And I think people, in a sense, want Iraq to fail at this point as a way to hold Bush accountable for the initial mistake of starting the war in the first place. And I sympathize with that notion. What message does it send that a manipulative war-mongering president gets everything he asks for? Now, if the cost of seeking that retribution weren't what it is (countless Iraqi lives, vast instability in the Middle East, future terrorist havens) I'd be all for it. Others think the dangers of letting presidents like George Bush get away with what he's done is a greater price to pay. Again, I find it difficult to reconcile. Ace.. we've discussed how I don't like getting wrapped up in metaphors before but what if there's a waterfall at the end of that river? do you swim to the shore, or go careening off the edge? And perhaps I'm just naive in my views of Congress approving the use of force in Iraq... but just because Congress gave him the OK, that doesn't equate to a free pass from being held accountable. What George Bush did with the military with Congress' approval, as commander in chief, is still his own responsibility. If things go bad, he should bear the brunt of that responsibility. Congress gave Bush just enough rope to hang himself. Whether he does, is up to him. (.... there's a Saddam/hanging joke in there somewhere, i just know it.) __________________ Greetings and salutations. Last edited by Moskie; 01-11-2007 at 11:53 AM..

01-11-2007, 11:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	What does it mean if I think everyone on this thread makes good, valid points? Political beliefs, in most of us, are closely associated with our core moral beliefs. Thus political discussion between people of different political beliefs often becomes emotional. No one likes to have their core moral beliefs poked at with an invalidating stick. It's a natural side-effect of the conflict of these kinds of ideas. That said, I think the level of opprobrium and vilification in this forum is extremely mild-mannered and civilized. I've said it before and I say it again. And that said, I think both sides often put their impulse to "be political" before the implementation of common sense and a desire to solve problems. At this time, our country is nearly paralyzed by this crippling phenomena to be sure. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

01-11-2007, 12:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	I can agree with you on that Ace. I would just clarify that the President should still bear more, if not most, of the responsibility, simply because he is commander in chief, and members of the House and Senate are not. I do not give members of Congress a free pass either. If I were to list the pros and cons of a particular congressmen, voting for the war would go in the "con" column. It is not irrelevant. But that has less bearing on my overall opinion of them, than it does with the commander in chief. Perhaps that is just a personal preference of mine. See, I don't believe that engaging Iraq was, definitively, a bad idea. With proper international support and valid exit strategy, getting rid of Saddam and his government would be A Good Thing, for many reasons. But circumstances being what they were, we did not have those going into the war, which is where my disapproval stemmed from the start. But, Bush claimed he could do it, and Congress let him try. It was a political, financial, and diplomatic gamble for all involved, to say the least. And it might be one that has no winners. The worst part of Bush's speech, though, was the fact that he did very little to convince anyone (or me, at least) that his plan had a probable chance of succeeding. I got the distinct impression that Bush was treating this as a last ditch effort, that could very well not work out. That scares me. __________________ Greetings and salutations. Last edited by Moskie; 01-11-2007 at 12:34 PM..

01-11-2007, 07:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
Chimera Banned	Well stated.....and I fully agree. Every citizen has the right, if not duty to "Be an American", and there is no one version of this title. Some will express loyalty to country as wholehearted unwavering support for government policy, and some will not. Yet , both are as American as you and I.

01-11-2007, 08:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I would say one of the most American things you can do is to vocalize your dissent with policy when it occurs. American was not formed on blind patriotism. In fact one of the clauses of our founding documents states as Americans it is our duty to stand up to our government when it isn't fitting our needs. While one way of doing this is voting it is not the only way our founding fathers intended us to do it. This is why they placed free speech, free press, and arguably the right to bear arms into our constitution.

01-11-2007, 10:37 AM	#5 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	In the run up to this war, and the first few years of it, the bashing that I was the most familiar with was of the "you're an unpatriotic bastard for questioning this war" variety. I direct anyone to see the movie "Shut Up and Sing" for more details of how that went. For, you know, voicing an opinion. While I agree with the theme of the OP, bashing goes in (and has gone in) two directions. My personal belief is that being called unpatriotic for questioning things is far worse than anything that I see happening to the other side now.

01-11-2007, 10:51 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't love my country any more than I love my car or my house or my hat. I pay for them, I am responsible for them, and I use them. I'm not sure what loving my country would entail, but I'm sure that I don't love it in the same way that I love freedom or love my family. I think that the idea of loving one's country can cloud one's ability to run said country, and the protective nature of that love can be used to control people. George W. Bush stole 2 elections can should probably be serving a prison sentence. He has ignored people much smarter than he, and has made a fool of every US citizen repeatedly. We have lost athe respect of our allies, and we have lost many lives. Allowing him to serve as president has been one of our country's great follies, and our children will no doubt question our sanity one day for allowing this. If we had good relations with our allies, we wouldn't need to have troops stationed anywhere but in the US unless we were attacked. Unfortuantely, we are in a dangerous cycle with the miliatary industrial complex controling much of military spending, which puts pressure on politicians to constantly be in a state of conflict or war. Tha constant state of conflict or war means that we need to streth our resources thin to deal with problems that we often start, and that we rarely fix. A proper democracy doesn't need to have military stations across the globe like an empire. I do what I can to allow my ideas to take root in the minds of others, but nothing will be done to stop them unless people are able to rally behind a cause and see the resolution to the end.

01-11-2007, 01:49 PM	#24 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	So.. the fog represents... Iran? No, wait, it represent the Jews, yea that's it. This is where using metaphors quickly turns absurd. Different aspects of it mean different things to different people, so we all run around ending at different conclusions, each of us thinking we won the game. I say we talk about Iraq. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

01-11-2007, 02:20 PM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	while the unfolding of the implications of the canoe trip analogy ace was kind enough to venture earlier seems a potential thread in itself, i wanted just to respond to the op for a minute... i dont see anything wrong with debate--including often passionate-to-snippy debate--amongst folk about the course the present administration has embarked on in iraq. i have never understood--and still do not understand--anything about what i think is still best characterized as the busby berkley school of political debate-you know, "come on, kids, let's all pull together as a team and put on a really great musical..." as if: (a) fundamental disagreement is somehow a problem in politics (it isnt) (b) power in any meaningful way resides with the people in the united states (it doesnt) such that there is any direct correlation between what "the people" want and how political power is exercized. last night's new course speech from the Dear Leader would have been impossible were there any such connection, for example. it aint like that: we the people have indirect power one day every two years, and really one day every 4 years. (c) there is no coherent notion of the "national will" that you can appeal to either in order to cement the argument that we all need to pull together in the same way in order to make of this wreckage a happy, shiny musical. democracies are characterized by the diversity of viewpoints--even a shallow one like the american version requires it if it is to be healthy. so i would think that vigorous debate would be understood as a hopeful sign in itself, even if it happens in spaces that could notbe more removed from actual power like this one. (d) i have never been persuaded that there is any single agreed upon way to define what working in the common interest looks like. i would think that principled dissent IS a way of trying to work for the common interest. so from my viewpoint, the idea that we all need to hold hands and sway together in the same way around a campfire so that the whole edifice does not collapse is just narcissism. so i see no problem at all with any and all modes of opposition to the war in iraq, say--not in principle at least (the contents of actual arguments are what really matter in any event)--nor in principle do i have a particular problem with such support as there is for it--but i also have no hesitation to say that i think the folk who support this war are somewhere been misinformed and wrong--and i see nothing about that which would indicate one way or another whether i (or anyone else) did or did not want the best for the united states--where i live too--across such debates. there are simply disagreements about what constitites the best for this place, just as there are disagreements about how this place is as over against how it culd be, and how the world it dominates is as over against how it could be. for myself, i simply do not accept that the present state of affairs is the best that we--or anyone--could do. if by thinking that way in general, it means that in the eyes of some i do not want to participate in the higher calling of putting on a musical, then so be it: but that it a judgment that comes entirely from how the sentences are read, and so refers to the reader, rather than from any coherent understanding of how is intended when the sentences are written. civility is another matter: another way of reading the op is as another call for civlity. same arguments as above could apply to this--there is no reason that civility should be used as a wedge to exclude positions, as if by saying x you are a priori not being civil. on the other hand, i think most who play here have found that it is more functional to take some of the edge off the posts we make from time to time. and that sometimes this editing is more successful than others. goes with the territory, i think. my my, wasnt that fun? yes, madge, it was fun. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-11-2007, 04:14 PM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I am using my talents by not shutting the f* up. . To suggest such a solution ("At this point Democrats need to shut the f* up and help row") is anti-democratic and stiffles a healthy debate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-11-2007, 08:05 PM	#38 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	not sure who's trying to fool who, but anyone with a brain should realize that this country is dead. It is not the USA that was created by the revolutionary war. It is not the country that existed prior to the civil war. Hell, it's not even the country that existed after the civil war. The socialists/communists have won. freedom is dead. quit your bitching and revel in the downfall most of you helped to create. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-11-2007, 08:54 PM	#39 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	yeah, we get it dks, you can't have a tank so we've destroyed the bill of rights and freedom has been flushed down the toilet. That's getting old, to be honest. as far as answers, mixedmedia, there are no good answers. This situation is unwinnable. We pull out, we're screwed. We stay there, we're screwed. Fact is, Bush has gotten us into one HELL of a mess, and there is absolutely NO course of action we can take at this point that will be palatable. Given that, we should leave. Now. We can't do any good there, at least we can save a few soldier's lives.