the sovereignty con

[Resolute Optimist]

[GomiGirl]

I am no left wing extremist by any stretch of the imagination, but this article overlooks a huge range of issues in an attempt to defend the approach of the current US administration...

I. too, can't find any excuses for genocide, but I can't find many excuses for political bludgeons used in the lead up to GW2.

"If you are not with us you are against us"
"If you question our motives you are not a patriot - or worse you support terrorism"

and so on. This squashes the possibility of meaningful debate.

And this from an email to me from an American friend.

Truly patriotic presidents never shy away from dissent. Theodore Roosevelt once said that it was treasonous to even suggest that the president should be immune to criticism--even during times of war. How far our nation has fallen since then!

Debate is healthy.. when people are frightened of open and mature conversations for fear of an opposing view, this shows a weak character.

I like Ultra's signature - I have never learned from anybody who agreed with me.. this is so true. When we stop learning we might as well crawl up and die.

I read an interesting essay yesterday from a blog of an American in Japan which puts forward an interesting flip side to the original post and mentions the comparisons between Hitler and Dubbya.

i-S@ko

Oh this is way too serious for a Friday..

[cstaylor]

Of course, I can take another quote from TR that fits this situation as well:
"A just war is in the long run far better for a nation's soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acquiescence in wrong or injustice."

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

I read an interesting essay yesterday from a blog of an American in Japan which puts forward an interesting flip side to the original post and mentions the comparisons between Hitler and Dubbya.

i-S@ko

For those who are ignorant enough to even compare the US to Germany under Hitler, there is just no hope. The world is moving, as it should, to democratic, capitalistic societies. As each bastion of tyranny has been removed, the world has grown a safer, better place to live in. In our modern age Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo fell. The USSR then fell, China is beginning to move forward. Now we have toppled Saddam. I can tell you that I have no doubt that the people of Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan have done better for themselves (and their neighbors) once we toppled their idiotic, antiquated leaders. I am also quite sure that Iraq will be a better place to live without Saddam and, moreover, they will be easier to live with.

This is called progress people. This is not genocide. Get your little pointy heads out of the sand called public education. This is good folks. Hello?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

"If you are not with us you are against us"
"If you question our motives you are not a patriot - or worse you support terrorism"

Factually, incorrect. The US has never said you are with us or against us. If that were true we would be making plans to attack France and Germany and possibly Russia. No one in the US administration is suggesting this. What the administration has done is voice their frustration and lack of respect for Chirac. Please, maam, give us the facts not the spin.

Debate is healthy.. when people are frightened of open and mature conversations for fear of an opposing view, this shows a weak character.

No American politician is trying to cut off the debate. We love debates. Why, because we win them when we show the world, again and again, how it is done and how to lead. The American treatment of its defeated enemies is the hallmark of the world's first truly enlightened and noble nation. It is so because of the people that make up America. People like me who are so racially mixed and culturally diverse that we understand that people are people and not animals.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Here, for all to see is a comment from the blog that GomiGirl linked to:


"When France leads the Security Council in principled opposition to Bush's insistence upon automatic triggers for war, it is vilified in the White House and in both chambers of Congress. Whatever the arguments leveled against France, surely it has the right to vote against a proposal, but the Bush administration would cast this exercise of a basic right as a betrayal."

What do the rest of you think? Do you think France was standing up to the US because of principles? Do you think that there assertion that they would veto the US of force no matter what belies the heart of a principled nation? Or, are these the actions of a major trading partner to Iraq trying to keep their influence in the region intact? Personally, I go for the latter.

Yes, as an American I think France has long been a disgraceful nation. Their peace and security were bought and paid for by America and many American lives were lost. And before any of you bellyaches start with that dirge about France supporting the colonists in the American revolution, let's get the record straight there too. The Lafayette American/France romance was very short lived indeed. As in less than a decade. Yes, the French supported the colonists during the revolution. But this was because they saw their influence in the region slipping away and if they couldn't colonize the Americas they were going to see to it that the British couldn't either.

[Resolute Optimist]

but this article overlooks a huge range of issues in an attempt to defend the approach of the current US administration...

In an article you defend a point of view. Whether you can believe it or not, defending the intervention in Iraq is not = to defending the "approach of the current US administration". I defend this intervention because I cannot choose to condemn an entire population to staying under a tyranny. It is no different to the fact that what people around me are saying is that democracy isn't worth the price of blood. I think that is easy to say when we forget that our ancestors were prepared to pay that price.
Our indecision to take action against people who menace the stability of their neighbours when we have the choice to do so, is costing just as many lives if not more, than going in and taking them out.

I really do not care about the economic aspects of this war. Not going in because it means getting a deal on oil is also putting oil before people in my mind...
And we are worried about the consequences. So am I. I suppose we never really know what chain of events we have started. But I have lost the idea that we live in a world that remains the same as yesterday and I do believe that stagnation is the enemy of peace. The only people who profit from stagnation are those who are working in the shadows.
And the only people who prone stagnation are those who live in comfort.

Believe me if Marine Le Pen becomes president of France in 4 years time, after a few years of her in power, I will be pleading anyone to bomb her out, even if I have to run the risk of dying. Why do you think our grandparents found the courage to pull through during the WW2? Because they didn't want to live like that forever.

Those around me who do not support in any way this intervention cited non of the arguments made by the author either, so I suppose that when you take sides you are condemned to support only part of the big picture.

"A just war is in the long run far better for a nation's soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acquiescence in wrong or injustice."

For me this quote sums it up.

[Resolute Optimist]

What do the rest of you think? Do you think France was standing up to the US because of principles? Do you think that there assertion that they would veto the US of force no matter what belies the heart of a principled nation? Or, are these the actions of a major trading partner to Iraq trying to keep their influence in the region intact? Personally, I go for the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, that is quite true.

As much as my opinions are based on what I consider to be just, I certainly hope that those who have shared France's view aren't taking France as an example.

By the way, France is congratulating Saddam's removal. If you want the result, you have to take the action. What other solutions does anyone propose? Weapons inspectors? They only started working because there were thousands of American troops at the borders. Had they found nothing, we would have then gone home, safe in the knowledge that we are leaving a dictator in place to torture his people. I KNOW you don't support dictators theoretically. But you can't ask a dictator nicely to leave. So what you do seemingly support in the end is what happens in any time of instability: ignoring your neighbour's cry for help. It's what happens when you want to keep your life cosy.

[American Oyaji]

Hey Gai,
Bush was indeed dodging debate on the tough questions. Recently, certain reporters have been blacklisted (not being called on to ask questions during brieifings because they asked tough questions).

I agree that Saddam needed taken out. But I think Bush talked to much schit before we proceeded.

There was too much rhetoric, not enough facts. But I guess we got to where we needed to be. Perhaps the govt didnt want to accuse France of being a trading partner in france.

[cliffy]

Perhaps the govt didnt want to accuse France of being a trading partner in france.

Umm this is a little nonsensical to me. National commercial masterbation???

[American Oyaji]

Perhaps the govt didnt want to accuse France of being a trading partner in france.

Umm this is a little nonsensical to me. National commercial masterbation???

Thanks cliffy!!

make that lower case france an IRAQ please.