Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

May 30 new
And John for the record. Right now the government in Iraq is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Maliki the leader of Iraq had the Sunni Vice President arrested for "terrorism" other prominent Sunni's have been arrested and Sunnis who were suppose to be in the cabinet not allowed in meetings there is discrimination. Ethic cleansing. So we basically may have sacrificed all of those lives, just to see another dictator get into power. And this war could spill into the entire region. As mentioned the fact that there wasn't unilateral support to get rid of Saddam-should have given us pause real pause because the people living there-knew something we didn't it.
May 30 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: And you know what John, I really resent you calling my ideas propaganda. I could argue your ideas are propaganda, because its what I hear from many on the Neo-con side. Your are ideas are your ideas. I never agreed with the Iraq war. Not from the very beginning, and it wasn't propaganda that convinced me, because I read both sides of the debate.
Rebecca, for all your resentment of me "calling [your] ideas propaganda," you leave me little choice in the matter.

For the second time now, you have advanced the oxymoron that the US has acted "unilaterally" in concert with dozens of other countries. This is impossible by definition, and there are only a limited number of explanations for your adherence to it.

The simplest explanation, and I reject this out of hand, is that you were too stupid to understand the terminology involved. You are obviously too smart for this explanation to be valid, so there must be another reason why you are clinging to a notion that is flatly and unarguably self-contradictory.

Another possibility, which I also believe to not be the case, is that you are so full of anger/hatred/rage about the situation that you are more interested in lashing out and spreading calumny than you are about telling the truth. That would hardly paint you in a positive light, and your general approach and demeanor does not strike me as somebody who is acting out of hatred or anger. So while hatred and/or anger often does cause people to say things that are contrary to truth and thus would explain the repeated use of a description that is impossible because because that description would be damaging to the presumptive target of the wrath, since I don't think you are acting out of wrath, I reject this explanation as well.

But I still need to find an explanation that even after being call on the misuse of the term, you are still so attached to it that you were willing to write, "and we and those dozen other countries-went at unilaterally." It's obvious that the pejorative connotation of the word "unilaterally" must for some reason be important to you, even though you are well aware that the definition does not, can not, apply. I will again point out that whether we acted unilaterally or not is completely irrelevant from a moral standpoint, so I find it hard to believe that you insistence on using the word is for any reason other than its negative connotation.

That pretty much leaves me with the notion that you have internalized Democratic party propaganda. While I don't think you are acting out of hatred or rage, there is no question that there was no shortage of folks in the Democratic party who absolutely were speaking out of hatred and rage at Bush. And one of the things they said in that hatred was that the U.S. was acting "unilaterally." And they said it a lot. And it is a lie. It is not possible by definition, yet they insist on it.

So given that you seem to be smart and acting in good faith, it seems to me that the most likely explanation for you using a term that isn't possible is that you accepted as true a propaganda point created by the Democrats. This would also explain your willingness to ignore the fact that Bush constantly gave an entire list of reasons for attacking Iraq and just focus on one, single, solitary point on that list that did not completely pan out.
May 30 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: ... But frankly we were the ones who pushed for it, and we and those dozen other countries-went at unilaterally. The ONLY body that had the authority to enforce the UN's resolutions was the UN. The UN specifically said no. ...   And as for the unlikely the group will be worse. Really I think its very likely. That you'll get a very aggressive Sharia law group that gives the people of Syria-far less rights than Assad did. .... As for revolutions rarely succeed without intervention. Oh plenty of have. The French revolution managed all on its own. The English had their own Revolutions without outside assistance, follks in Romania, Poland, all somehow managed to do soo. The Iranian Revolution. Heck the Tsar of Russia went down without the United States bugging in..
The fact that the U.S. pushed for the war is morally irrelevant. The war's morality or immorality exists on its own merits, not on the basis of who advocated it.

You statement that the UN is the only body to enforce the UN's resolutions doesn't really do you any good here. The UN had already authorized the war against Iraq in response to its invasion against Kuwait. The fighting had stopped do to a cease-fire, not a formal end to the conflict. Iraq violated that cease-fire on numerous occasions, giving the other side full legal authority to resume full-scale combat if it so desired. A technicality? Yes, but since you're trying to argue on a technicality, it isn't really a problem.

As to a new resolution, the UN may have failed to pass one specifically authorizing the resumption of hostilities, but it also failed to rescind old ones or otherwise prohibit further action.

The UN chose (as normal) to be a non-factor in the conflict, so it really doesn't matter.

I again point out that you are wrong in assuming that Syrians actually have rights at the moment. They have none. Therefore, it is impossible for a new government to take away what isn't actually there. The evil most likely will be a different evil, but there is actually not all that much room for a post-Assad government to be more evil.

You remain incorrect in your stand on wars of rebellion. The Tsar might have gone down without the U.S. bugging in, but Imperial Germany certainly gave a nudge; they are the ones who arraigned for Lennin to get to Russia in the first place. Most of your examples are not applicable. There is a difference between a regime collapsing on its own and between it being overthrown in a rebellion. I will repeat a paragraph here:

It is also possible that regimes will crumble without a rebellion. We saw this with the Soviet Bloc at the end of the Cold War. But for this to happen, you need a population that is fairly homogenous in its opposition to the regime a security apparatus that is identifying more with the population than the regime.

Most of your examples come from this category. A number of your examples were Soviet Bloc countries, so they were even explicitly dealt with here. The French and Russian revolutions also belong in here (although the Russian revolution was more complicated). The civil wars of feudal England had almost nothing to do with the population throwing off an oppressive government and everything to do with the power struggles of the leading noble families. Cromwell would be your best bet.

In the immediate past there was a bona-fide civil war in Libya, where the rebels won with outside assistance. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Shining Path in South America also fought in civil wars, received no outside support, and are finished. Vietnamese rebels ousted the French with outside assistance. A Malaysian insurgency against British colonial rule withered on the vine and was defeated. The insurgency there had no outside patron helping them out. In the last few decades in Iraq, there were two seperate armed uprisings against Saddam, neither of which garnered outside intervention and both of which were brutally crushed.

May 30 new
John, I pointed out to that I'll consist in someways the term unilateral, we went alone. What I will not concede is the principal of the matter which is we had no authority to go there. It doesn't matter if we had "allies" or not. After all Hitler had allies. What matter is that nobody anointed us or are "coalition of the willing" as the policemen of the world. That was the UN's resolution and so it was the UN's decision to enforce it or not. Period. Second, I will point out I resent the Democrat propaganda comment because for the record, the Democrats initially supported the war. I to be frank-never did.. I thought it was a bad idea, the second it was withdrawn. And why not because I read Democrat propaganda- but because I actually know history pretty well- I have a degree in it. And all of my studies of history showed me that war is a terrible thing and it very rarely solve problems-often creates them. Sure Hitler left-but the Soviet Union became powerful. ' Thera are times when okay-I will support war like World War II, but I have strict, very strict criteria. And Iraq never met my criteria. Not even when they were arguing Iraq had those weapons I use to say back then even if Saddam has them-no way would he be stupid enough to use them on us. That was my opinion. My personal poltical stance is don't drink the koolaid of any party. I hate them both. I tend to vote pro life but that's for pro life. I try to read both sides and what both sides have to say, and I read international news a lot to get perspective. I've heard the argument for Iraq and disagreed. A lot of times if "people buy in propaganda" they buy in it because of their internal values. I could argue there was "pro war" propaganda too. And I will say this, in what way does Iraq compare to our revolution. A lot of the revolutions your mentioning- are revolutions against foreign powers. The Vietnamese were fighting the French a colonial power. We were fighting the British-a colonial power. Saddam was not a colonial power. He was an internal leader. That is an internal fight, and the issue with internal fights, is that in the end all parties have to live together. Outsider can stick their noises in the fight, but outsiders eventually leave-and who ends up making the decisions-the people who LIVE there... Once again the fact that all of those folks have to live there, is why us going in there, destroying fabrics that held people together-isn't a good idea One could point out okay Saddam was a bad guy. But was it necessary to ban the Baathist party. The Baathists have some pretty good ideas in there. And okay Saddam was bad-but destroying the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army didn't belong Saddam. It was an institution that held respect amongst all Iraqi's kind of like how the Egyptians view it. But we went and destroyed it. And that led to the chaos we saw later. Now with the new one the Shiite don't want to include the Sunnis. And you see these are things that happen when people go in and get themselves involved internal civil wars. Libya right now is a mess too, because at the end of the day the Western powers leave, and then all of those people who were fighting to begin with-are still there and still fighting. Huge difference between fighting colonial powers and fighting amongst people who have to live together later.
May 30 new
And for the record I wasn't one who supported quick withdraw after we went in either. I felt that we owed the Iraqis to establish order after we wrecked their country. I agreed with Colin Powell "you break it you own it." My opinion on our foreign policy and this includes Libya its this from Great Gatsby "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made And this one I did get from another article John, but it illustrates my feelings about our foreign policy-perfectly. We go in smash things and then leave with no thought of what are smashing does.
May 30 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: John, I pointed out to that I'll consist in someways the term unilateral, we went alone. What I will not concede is the principal of the matter which is we had no authority to go there. It doesn't matter if we had "allies" or not. After all Hitler had allies. What matter is that nobody anointed us or are "coalition of the willing" as the policemen of the world. That was the UN's resolution and so it was the UN's decision to enforce it or not. Period. Second, I will point out I resent the Democrat propaganda comment because for the record, the Democrats initially supported the war. I to be frank-never did.. I thought it was a bad idea, the second it was withdrawn. And why not because I read Democrat propaganda- but because I actually know history pretty well- I have a degree in it. And all of my studies of history showed me that war is a terrible thing and it very rarely solve problems-often creates them. Sure Hitler left-but the Soviet Union became powerful. ' Thera are times when okay-I will support war like World War II, but I have strict, very strict criteria. And Iraq never met my criteria. Not even when they were arguing Iraq had those weapons I use to say back then even if Saddam has them-no way would he be stupid enough to use them on us. That was my opinion. My personal poltical stance is don't drink the koolaid of any party. I hate them both. I tend to vote pro life but that's for pro life. I try to read both sides and what both sides have to say, and I read international news a lot to get perspective. I've heard the argument for Iraq and disagreed. A lot of times if "people buy in propaganda" they buy in it because of their internal values. I could argue there was "pro war" propaganda too. And I will say this, in what way does Iraq compare to our revolution. A lot of the revolutions your mentioning- are revolutions against foreign powers. The Vietnamese were fighting the French a colonial power. We were fighting the British-a colonial power. Saddam was not a colonial power. He was an internal leader. That is an internal fight, and the issue with internal fights, is that in the end all parties have to live together. Outsider can stick their noises in the fight, but outsiders eventually leave-and who ends up making the decisions-the people who LIVE there... Once again the fact that all of those folks have to live there, is why us going in there, destroying fabrics that held people together-isn't a good idea One could point out okay Saddam was a bad guy. But was it necessary to ban the Baathist party. The Baathists have some pretty good ideas in there. And okay Saddam was bad-but destroying the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army didn't belong Saddam. It was an institution that held respect amongst all Iraqi's kind of like how the Egyptians view it. But we went and destroyed it. And that led to the chaos we saw later. Now with the new one the Shiite don't want to include the Sunnis. And you see these are things that happen when people go in and get themselves involved internal civil wars. Libya right now is a mess too, because at the end of the day the Western powers leave, and then all of those people who were fighting to begin with-are still there and still fighting. Huge difference between fighting colonial powers and fighting amongst people who have to live together later.
Rebecca, you desperately need to start including white space in your posts! Not only will it help everybody else understand what you're trying to say, but it can't hurt you in your proofreading. I'm not trying to pick on you here, we all make grammar and editing mistakes and I'm certainly no exception to that, but when you throw it on top of a monolithic block of text like this where idea piles on idea, the whole thing becomes unmanageable.

For example, look at your first sentence. I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Then on top of that beginning, you just jam what should be at least 5 paragraphs into one big blob. White space might help you to avoid what almost seems like stream-of-consciousness at times.

I have no doubt you are intelligent and can be quite articulate. But you're not doing yourself justice here.
May 30 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: ... What I will not concede is the principal of the matter which is we had no authority to go there. It doesn't matter if we had "allies" or not. ... That was the UN's resolution and so it was the UN's decision to enforce it or not. ... I will point out I resent the Democrat propaganda comment because for the record, the Democrats initially supported the war. I to be frank-never did.. ... And all of my studies of history showed me that war is a terrible thing and it very rarely solve problems-often creates them. ...  ... A lot of times if "people buy in propaganda" they buy in it because of their internal values. I could argue there was "pro war" propaganda too. ...in what way does Iraq compare to our revolution. A lot of the revolutions your mentioning- are revolutions against foreign powers. The Vietnamese were fighting the French a colonial power. We were fighting the British-a colonial power. Saddam was not a colonial power. He was an internal leader. That is an internal fight, and the issue with internal fights, is that in the end all parties have to live together. ... And okay Saddam was bad-but destroying the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army didn't belong Saddam. It was an institution that held respect amongst all Iraqi's kind of like how the Egyptians view it. ...
I have no idea what you're saying in your first sentence, so I don't know how to address it.

We had all the authority we needed to resume hostilities with Iraq. First, the UN is not the sole source of authority to decide who can go to war. Second even if it was, UN Security Council Resolution 678 was still in effect, so there is no validity to the claim that the U.S. was in any way acting in defiance of the UN.

I agree with your statement that people buy into propaganda because of their internal values. I'm not sure how (or if) you think that helps your case. Your internal values are clearly anti-war, so it would make sense that you would buy into anti-war propaganda. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're buying into anything because the Democrats were spouting it; I think you're buying into it because you're anti-war. It is simply coincidence that the Democrats happened to be anti-war for a while. As you point out, the Democrats initially supported the war. Their positions on the topic have always ween ones of political convenience, not principle.

You are of correct that war is always a terrible thing.

As to whether or not war solves problems, it depends entirely on the problems you're talking about. You can cherry-pick examples either way. The Franco-Prussian War and WWI certainly created more problems than they solved. The American Revolution and Civil War did the opposite.

What is the basis for your claim that the Iraqi people had pride in their army or that it didn't belong to Saddam?

Your attempt to distinguish between rebellions against native or colonial rulers doesn't really matter. The point remains that there is a ruler and the ruled, and that the ruled start out at a disadvantage. This is why rebellions against an established and powerful authority generally need outside assistance.


May 30 new
My computer freezes out and I noticed the errors but cannot edit. I will try to create paragraphs. First point, I slightly conceded the term unilateral in that I agreed that we weren't the only country involved in the war. We had some buddies a "coalition of the willing." However, just because we had some buddies, doesn't mean that we had the authority to go fight the war. After all guess what Hitler had allies and buddies. Heck, he and Stalin agreed to carve up Poland together. Because two countries agreed to this, does that mean its justified? No-what they did was still illegal and against international law. The same goes for Iraq. The world didn't give the "coalition of the willing" the authority to police the world. It was the UN's resolution. It was the UN's place to enforce it. I am not a Democrat-not even close. I vote pro life, which means I vote Republican by default. However I hate both parties. I agree with the Dems on some issues and the Repubs on others. I drink neither side's koolaid and I try to look at each issue separately. I pride myself on hating both, actually. I have a degree in History, I've studied a lot on war. And my studies of war has shown that very rarely solves problems and also creates more. Violent revolutions often lead to violent governments. I accept sometimes war is necessary based on my studies. But my studies has given me strict internal criteria to evaluate any war. And I'm telling you now, I didn't need to read a lot of Democrat propaganda for me to disagree with the war. Maybe its just because I agree with their side. And hey use one of their arguments, doesn't mean I didn't look at both sides of the issue. I don't assume that you didn't look at both arguments, just because you are spouting Pro Iraq war propaganda. And really the Dems supported the war at first. To be frank, the previous Pope's strong condemnations that go with "Democratic propaganda." Convince me that my internal reaction to the Iraq war was the right. Far more than something Obama would say. Finally I would like to point out that you keep on bringing up revolutions that involved colonial powers. Vietnam vs France, America vs Britain etc. The problem is that Iraq is not this. Syria is not this Saddam was no colonial master. He's an internal leader. Same goes for Assad. The fact is with these internal disputes- the fact is all sides have to live together. Even if the nations split they have to live next to each other. So in the end, we aren't going to solve anything because the Sunni's aren't exactly going to leave Iraq. That's their home. The Alawites, Sunnis, Shiia, none of them are leaving Syria. When a foreign power comes in and steps in and takes sides in an internal dispute, it doesn't always solve anything. Because what happens is said foreign power leaves and then the sides are still going to have to live together and come to some kind of terms. Look at Vietnam, we fought, fought, fought. Eventually heck we left. And then North Vietnamese won anyways. By virtue of still being there. Its not always wise to get into someone's family dispute. And outsiders who don't know the internal dynamics, the internal politics can often make the situation far worse. For example in Iraq, we disbanded the army, which is part of what made the country go into chaos. The army was respected throughout Iraq, it wasn't considered just Saddam's. It was disbanding the army that caused a lot of the power vacuum. Iraqis wouldn't have done this. They are still angry we did it. And the new Iraqi army well the Shia aren't wanting the Sunnis in it. We essentially went into a country that was not attacking us, had no desire to go to war with us, and destroyed everything that held that country together. We played "God"/King maker. And the King we installed may end up becoming just as bad as the King we got rid off. This statement from an Iraqi woman "Before under Saddam I could be killed for having an opinion. Now I can be killed for having an opinion and wearing lipstick." So ask yourself is it right for us to play judge/jury for other people's governments and kill a heck of a lot of people to get the outcome "we want" if we can't guarantee that the people will have a better government afterwards. I say no-its not right.
May 30 new
My computer is acting up. Its posting before I "submit post' sigh. The above post is the one I wanted to submit. I'm sorry John, but no we don't have authority to go into another country. Just because want to . Anymore than Russia, China, and a group of other nations. Have the authority to say 1. Obama's bad. 2. Plenty of Americans don't like Obama 3. So i.e we can go into America, we can invade and overthrow Obama! Do you know how many invaders have argued "they are liberating folks" Hitler used that argument quite a lot. And wasn't completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that once we give nations the right to start interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, you set up a Pandora's box. The UN has its issues mainly the fact that the UN is held to the whims of whatever a few superpowers want. But at least it has some authority because all the nations, that are part of it, agreed to give it authority. Sorry we had no authority, we aren't the boss of Iraq or Saddam.
May 30 new
I'm sorry I tried to create paragraphs but it didn't go...
Posts 131 - 140 of 192