[sonny]

Let me start by saying that the last thing I want is innocent people to die.......it is often suggested in a roundabout way that those who support the looming war in Iraq are ignorant blood thirsty idiots who believe everything that they are told by the "evil Republicans" and right wing media.
I find that it is getting harder and harder for me to discuss politics and world affairs without things getting hot.
I support the war.....do I have questions about how this mess got started?....sure.......do I question certain foriegn policies..you bet......but I'll be damned if I don't support our troops and our leaders decisions on the current situation.....I have chosen my side and I'm sticking to it.
Err?....oh yea...My question....You read the title.....what ridiculous accusations have you heard recently from the anti war crowd about our govt.?.....what about GWB.....I can't begin to tell you all about some of the stuff I've been hearing........I had some college kid assure me that the war in Iraq is RAGING as we speak and we have been killing record #'s of civilians with total reckless bombings...and the media is not covering it for security reasons.
His information was given to him by one of his proffesors who was ...in this kids words ....A former leader (whatever that means?) of the CIA who was kicked out for not playing the game.
and this was told to him in strict confidence......yea right!

Anyway what have you been hearing from the (EXTREME) antis?

[Meow]

"Saddam isn't such a bad guy" and "We shouldn't go without the UN" whose human rights commision is lead by, wonder of wonders, Libya!

[jmbg29]

What is the most ridiculous thing you have heard from the anti WAR crowd?That WE (Americans) are going to kill billions of innocent Iraqis. :rolleyes: :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:

Second funniest is "We're patriots too!" LMFAO

[sonny]

Billions?:D

[jmbg29]

Billions?Billions. :banghead: :barf:

[Zundfolge]

here ... go watch these clowns spout their stupidity in their own voices :)

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html


direct link to the quicktime movie (http://homepage.mac.com/evancm/brain-terminal/da-peace_web.mov) right click and "save target as" if you are on a slower connection or just want to view it localy (recommended)

[Hkmp5sd]

MSNBC should give that guy at brain-terminal Phil Donohue's recently canceled talk show slot. He's very good!

[MacPelto]

The most ridiculous thing that I have heard from them is that "violence doesn't solve anything".

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Zundfolge]

The most ridiculous thing that I have heard from them is that "violence doesn't solve anything".


Thats what makes this counter-protest so funny

http://deneb.bu.edu/politics/antiprotest/counterprotest2.jpg

[Standing Wolf]

The most ridiculous thing that I have heard from them is that "violence doesn't solve anything".

Is it a mere coincidence that the people who say such stupid things are the very people who advocate unrestricted murder of unborn children, but would gladly deny law-abiding Americans the right to keep and bear arms? I believe it's no coincidence at all. I believe they're first and foremost anti-Americans. Their resistance to our fighting World War III has nothing to do with pacifist principles, Saddam Hussein, fake patriotism, or anything else. They're just pure and simple anti-Americans.

[Dave T]

I don't remember the idiot female's name but she got up to speak at the NY anti-war rally a week or so back. She said she didn't think there were any more heros until the people she was speaking to showed up for the protest.

To say that in NYC, where all those fireman and police officers went into the towers to save lives, and gave up their own, makes me so sick and disgusted I can't come up with words (at least printable words) to express my anger.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Second funniest is "We're patriots too!" LMFAOYerright. They shouldn't end that with "too."

[CZ-75]

And they shouldn't begin with "We're patriots" either.

[Monkeyleg]

From one of my favorite "little" movies: Violence never solved anything, but it sure changes the subject.

[JohnBT]

I don't listen to them and I don't argue with them. When they start in on it I tell them we've been at war since at least...

A) the first attack on the WTC

B) the first time we battled IRAQ's leader

Then I just shake my head in disgust and walk away.

Did I tell you about the college professor across the street who stood in the middle of the road last summer and yelled at my retired neighbor to take her U.S. flag down and keep it down? It wasn't a pretty scene.

John

[CZ-75]

John,

Tell us about your commie neighbor. I'd like to hear more about his ravings.

[jmbg29]

Did I tell you about the college professor across the street who stood in the middle of the road last summer and yelled at my retired neighbor to take her U.S. flag down and keep it down? It wasn't a pretty scene.The "peace" scum around here just steal them.

[boing]

Sheryl Crow:

"I think the best way to solving problems is to not have enemies."

To which I say...we're working on it! :D

[4570Rick]

Just heard some blissninnie on 11:00 news say "Saddam does not represent a threat to the US." :rolleyes: :banghead:

[CyberGOP]

There's but one point the pro-war movement has yet been able to prove , what has Iraq done to harm us ? Have they attacked us ? They haven't . Have they aided Al-Queda , that is yet to be proven . They possess weapons of mass destruction , which is a problem , but let's not forget what made it a problem , the Gulf War , if not for it Hussien would be an ally . Bush 1 should have followed Machiavelli's advice , he should've either eliminated Hussien , or left him alone . The point of this rant , it was an over aggressive foriegn policy that caused this Iraq problem , I don't know if its the solution to this one .

[Lord Grey Boots]

Gulf War 1 was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Thats all the UN mission allowed. The mission was successful.

Iraq has been aiding terrorist organizations for years, Al Queda was probably one of them, but its hard to prove, and it is, in any case irrelevant, as Iraqi support of Al Queda is not a reason for going after Iraq.

What kind of threat to the US would be considered a sufficient threat? It sounds like folks want proof that Iraqi armor is rolling onto the beaches of Florida, or that Iraq is aiming nuclear missiles at NYC.

Threat to the US? He has attacked US allies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel).

Of course there no reason why Iraq wouldn't stick a bio, chemical, or nuclear warhead on a truck, run it through Syria to Lebanon, and then send it by ship into a New York Harbor and set it off.

Saddam is like a paroled child molester, who is classified as a "will reoffend". Do you really want to ignore his current parole violations and attacks on other kids, and wait until it is PROVEN that he attacked your child?


The real question is: Does the UN enforce the cease fire agreement made at the end of the Gulf War, in which Iraq was to demonstrably destroy its long range missiles, and WMD weapons and programs, as well as the additional UN Security council resolutions, and thus make certain that the UN means something,
or, does the UN become as irrelevant as the League of Nations who did nothing in 1935 when Abyssinia was invaded by Italy. This lack of action gave the green light to Mussolini and Hitler.


Saddam was to have disarmed 12 years ago, and then proactively prove to the weapon inspectors that he did.

Its NOT the weapon inspectors job to search out and discover what he is really doing, but they seem to be have been put in the position of doing so.

[TarpleyG]

"The ONLY reason we [US] are going to war is because Saddam had a hit out on 'daddy' and GWB wants to get even."

This, from a guy I work with...

GT

[Waitone]

"Give the inspectors more time."

[ravinraven]

Finding the funniest thing said by the anti-liberty, anti-American crowd can't be done. Just when you think that you've found it, some other record breaker comes along.

However, I do thank this thread for providing me with a new word: "blissninnie." I owe 4570Rick for that one. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

raving raven

[Thumper]

There's but one point the pro-war movement has yet been able to prove , what has Iraq done to harm us ?

Interestingly illogical line of reasoning. It's funny that it's coming up so much.

Had you ever even heard of Mohammed Atta on 9/10/01? You could've said the same thing about him. Just because someone hasn't attacked you doesn't mean they wont. Or that they're not LIKELY to.

The sworn enemy approaching you loading his gun (or cropduster of nerve agent) hasn't done anything to you yet has he?

Good reasoning. :rolleyes:

[JohnBT]

"Tell us about your commie neighbor."

She and her husband went to Cuba last year. It was a 'music trip' - he plays in the symphony.

Heard enough yet?

Teaches at the University of Richmond...it costs, oh, $25k-$30k to go there...and says things like "Osama got all of his money from the U.S." Me, "His family gave him 320 million dollars to leave home." Her..."Really?"

She teaches, I believe, international studies - Russian and Eastern European stuff.

Let's see, I was in college in the late 1960s and early '70s. I've been around. Having stated my qualifications as a once-upon-a-time liberal sort, they have let their 2 daughters run around outside, basically unsupervised and nekkid (yes, no diaper, nada), from the time they could toddle. I don't have a problem with this per se, but we live in an old area of downtown Richmond. Think 1915 row houses and town houses where the front porches are only a few steps up from the street and the 7-11 is only a block away in one direction and the Catholic boys' school is a block the other way - lots of foot traffic. It just never seemed prudent in this day and age.

I've said more than I started out to. Think I'll go to the range and stop by Lowe's on the way home and buy me a new flag.

John

[12.7x99mm]

here is some ammo for replying to these anti American fools...


"The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq!" -->So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

"We are in a rush to war." -->An 11-year rush?

"Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without invading Iraq." -->11 years of inspections have done wonders so far.

"We should let the inspectors finish their job." --> We did. They didn't. We will.

"Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991." --> But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

"There's no proof of weapons." --> We have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen's shorts?

"If we invade, Saddam Hussein might use those weapons of mass destruction against us." --> I thought you said Iraq didn't have them?

"But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq." ->Oh, so if we don't attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

"We shouldn't go to war without a UN resolution." --> ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

"We don't have a real declaration for war." -->It's called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114."

"We are giving 20 billion to Turkey. We could use that money at home." -->OK, we'll use that money to strengthen our Iraqi border with Wyoming.

"If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren't we invading them first?" --> Uh, hello...isn't that the point?

"European leaders are against the war." --> The Reichstag wasn't attacked. The Grande Place wasn't attacked. The Kremlin wasn't attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn't attacked. America was attacked. And besides, except for the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren't willing to defend freedom. The entire rest of Europe is with America.

"The French don't support the war." --> Oh, did they surrender already?

"Germany objects to this war." --> Germany objected to Reagan's "attitude" towards the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1944 as well.

"Belgians are against the war." --> I can live without Waffles and ice cream.

"USSR doesn't support the war." --> They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

"Polls show Europeans are against this war." --> Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and brie¡K

"We should build a coalition with our friends." --> With friends like these, who needs enemies?

"What happens if we can't build a United Nations coalition?" --> Who cares?

"But the UN is the world's most respected governing body." --> Not as respected as the US military.

"America has always waited until enemies attacked." --> Now that oceans can't hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

"War will cost billions!" --> So...how much is YOUR city worth?

"President Bush says he's willing to violating the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders." --> As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right...

"Many Senators don't support Bush." --> Are you speaking of the Senators from Bordeaux?

"Tom Daschle says George Bush has a 'credibility gap'." --> When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth???

"These problems didn't happen under Clinton." --> Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now, Bush will clean up his mess.

"But Clinton didn't start a war." --> Unless his girlfriend was testifying before congress...

"Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91." --> That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

"Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the war." -->Millions of Iraqi's are begging for us to start the war.

"Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured." --> That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now. (Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed...)

"Young Americans will die in battle." --> Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

"Protesters have genuine objections to war" --> Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

"People are coming from all over the world to act as 'human shields'." --> Quick, hurry, before the bombs start dropping! (gotta cull the herd, ya know...)

"This is about American Imperialism." --> So which country do we own? What nation sends us their tax dollars? If America was imperialist, we'd already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

"This is Blood for Oil." --> The only blood is the Iraqi people tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons¡Kall financed with Iraqi oil.

"This is a racist war." --> America happily endorses a multi-cultural attitude towards anyone who dares to take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.

"A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists." --> Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

"An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations." --> Destabilize the region? The sooner we topple these oppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

"Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?" --> Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.

"Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from al Qaeda than from Iraq." --> It's not a war against Al Qaeda. It's not a war against Iraq. It's a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

"American opinion is against the war." --> No, it's not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

"According to a recent poll..." --> You know what? Screw those polls. We're in a war against terrorism. If you don't want to fight the bastards, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. Forever. But this time, don't call us when the heathens are at the gates.

[CZ-75]

Heard enough yet?

I didn't hear about the specific incident about the flag, but you've given me a good insight into the overall stupidity of the woman, particularly that she lives in an urban environment and thinks nothing of letting the kids wander around.

I always love the folks who use their kids as an instrument to fulfill their ideas of social engineering. :barf:

[sonny]

ienjoyedthat:)

[boing]

I always love the folks who use their kids as an instrument to fulfill their ideas of social engineering.

That works both ways, you know... ;)

[Drjones]

12.7x99mm:

:eek:

What an awesome post!!!

One point I'd like to add to: "USSR doesn't support the war." --> They are still angry over Reagan's brilliant Cold War victory.

I think a better reply would be; "The reason the USSR doesn't support the war on Iraq is because the USSR is the largest supplier of weapons to Iraq. It is reported that Iraq owes Russia about $4 Billion dollars for past weapons purchases. If Saddam is removed from power, Russia will not recieve that $4 Billion dollars. Don't you think $4 Billion would be reason alone for YOU to oppose the war too?"

:D

(BTW, the above is found in a story titled "Saddam's Arsenal" from www.newsmax.com )

[.45TCB]

Yeah, what 12.7x99mm said! :cool:

[Bainx]

"The killing of innocent civilians will continue until we achieve our goals."

I just made that one up

[Bergeron]

The most rediculous thing that I've heard yet:

I go home and turn on the TV to the locala access channel. The program on is being hosted by a gal that I recognize from one of my classes. She always seemed a little bit out there, so I was not surprised when the focus of the program was why it was wrong fight Iraq. I thought, hey, I might actually learn something from a point of view different from my own.

So I watched a part of it. I had to turn it off however when the hostess said "We shouldn't go to war with Iraq because we will have to call up the Guard to go fight, and the only reason people join the Guard is to pay for college, not to fight.":scrutiny:

Hmmm, yeah, right. I had to take it off then, no way could someone that dense be expected to make a logical argument.

[dance varmint]

Anything uttered by France or the Pope.
Also, "Free Mumia Abu Jamal", "1, 2, 3, fo, we don't want no racist wo" and "Allah Akbar".

[Minute_Of_Torso]

I've heard some pretty stupid things but the worst, IMHO, are the pro-war guys calling me a traitor or a terrorist sympathizer because I think we SHOULDN'T go to war if it has anything to do with the UN.

I'm a veteran (some of my service being the first Desert Storm UN War) and am America First from the word go. It sickens me to think that the President of the United States would go to the UN, which has always been adamantly opposed to everything the US was founded for, and beg for permission, or at least concurrence, to wipe out those who would threaten us. The UN can pass resolutions all day long and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans to a sovereign United States. None of our boys (and now girls) in uniform ever swore an oath to the travesty they call the UN constitution!

You can call me a conspiracy nut all day long . . . doesn't bother me. But DO NOT question my patriotism.

Get US out of the UN!

[Drjones]

Minute:

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe, as others have mentioned, that the only reason Bush is even pretending to care what the UN does is just to cover his rear politically.

Most everybody here agrees (as do I) that we should indeed get out of the UN.

Regarding calling people "traitors", "anti-American" and such, well, those names are reserved for those who deserve them, such as the retarded protestors who march with communists, flag-burners, and other true anti-Americans.

Don't go to any of those marches/demonstrations, and you're just as American as the rest of us as far as I'm concerned, regardless of opinions on the war .

Though I don't think anyone who opposes the war to be all that smart....:p

But only because, just as with gun control, I have yet to hear even a HINT of a cogent, logical argument for NOT going to war... :rolleyes: :scrutiny:

[Captain Bligh]

Thank God that we have the anti-war crowd. The right to stand up and freely say what is on your mind without fear of retribution is one of the things that our troops are willing to die for.

One doesn't do that so readily if one's address is in Bagdhad or Kabul.

Is this a great country, or what?

RJ

[CMichael]

"containment" will work.

[Minute_Of_Torso]

Drjones:

anti-war is not the argument I make. anti-UN IS the argument I make. When we go, and we will, it should be a US committment for US benefit, with US commanders, with US gains.

I, however, am not as optimistic as you are about Bush's benign political worries about the UN. He is a UN supporter (in his own words, policies, and actions) and has only served to strengthen their unlawful meddlings in our affairs.

What worries me the most is not a war with Hussein but the policies Bush has enacted in this country. While most neo-conservatives would have screamed bloody murder if Clinton had enacted half of what Bush has enacted, they are all to willing to praise Bush for those same policies (and more).

I for one consider myself a constitutionalist and try to see things in that light. I don't trusty ANY government regardless of whether the President/Congress are Republican or Democrat. All governments tend to gravitate towards the crushing of individual rights. That is my worry about a President/Congress and a huge mass of people who try to be conservative that see nothing wrong with the administration's empowerment of the UN.

I, too (as your name would imply), have my doctorate and don't consider myself to be too extremely ignorant. In this short space I won't even attempt to make a completely cogent argument about Bush's UN complicity . . . there are too many people who have made this their full time research projects. Suffice it to say, I am America First. I support a person's RIGHT to not be America First even though I think that is disgusting. I don't need the acknowledgement of othes who say I'm "just as American as the rest of us" because I have the medals on my wall to prove that I've fought and sacrificed for the right to say that I'm a patriot. I just don't view Bush as this ultraconservative savior of our nation as others seem to think he is.

[twoblink]

Just heard some blissninnie on 11:00 news say "Saddam does not represent a threat to the US."

That's a misquote; she read it wrong, it should say "Saddam does not represent a threat to JUST the US." :D

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/

Dumbest? There's SOOO many to choose from! Don't read this site while drinking! I almost blew tea out my nose!

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
anti-war is not the argument I make. anti-UN IS the argument I make. When we go, and we will, it should be a US committment for US benefit, with US commanders, with US gains.
To be against any use of force by U.S. troops simply because the UN has given it's tacit approval is as short sighted as the lefts assertion that we can't get involved without UN approval. The question should be a simple one: Does the proposed action benifit the interests of the U.S.? If the UN chooses to go along, great. If not, who cares!

I feel that in regards to the upcoming war against Saddam Hussain, this question has been answered in the affirmative!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
I, however, am not as optimistic as you are about Bush's benign political worries about the UN. He is a UN supporter (in his own words, policies, and actions) and has only served to strengthen their unlawful meddlings in our affairs. Your contention has NOT been supported by President Bush's actions. President Bush has given little but lip service to the UN. Prior to 9-11, this was Europes and the lefts major complaint against the President. Just remember back to the complaints about his not signing the Kyoto Accords or not participating in the conference on racism held in South Africa. They were concerned about a new era of American isolationism similar to the 1930's.

If anything, President Bush's current actions are showing the impotance of the UN!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
I for one consider myself a constitutionalist and try to see things in that light. I don't trusty ANY government regardless of whether the President/Congress are Republican or Democrat.
How can you claim to be a constitutionalist and not trust "ANY government"? The Constitution established our government and the rules that it is to operate under. Our founders understood that government is necessary for the prosperty of our citizens. They also understood the necessity of keeping the government under restraint. This is an eternal struggle well anticipated by these men.

It is appropriate to be concerned about the reach of government and wether or not it is heading in the right direction, but to not trust in "any" government is to wish for anarchy!

I just don't understand people who view the UN as this overwhelming danger to our national sovereignty. Over the last 40 years, the UN has lost both power and credibility. The UN used to be considered the savior of the planet when it was first established and was supported by the vast majority of Americans.

The only people who believe this now are the international America haters or the radical anti-American left.

__________________

[Minute_Of_Torso]

Cactus:

My friend, you have oversimplified the argument to such an extent that you have created the proverbial “straw man” and then knocked it down. I will try to explain my position as succinctly as possible.

*********************************************
Quote:
To be against any use of force by U.S. troops simply because the UN has given it's tacit approval is as short sighted as the lefts assertion that we can't get involved without UN approval. The question should be a simple one: Does the proposed action benifit the interests of the U.S.? If the UN chooses to go along, great. If not, who cares!

I feel that in regards to the upcoming war against Saddam Hussain, this question has been answered in the affirmative!
*********************************************

Whether or not US forces are used to destroy the Hussein regime is a moot point. I certainly agree that Hussein is the bad guy here. The problem I encounter is that this bad guy:

1. Has become a convenient bad guy in that everyone agrees that he’s a bad guy and should be overthrown (time and time again, just when UN approval is foundering and they appear to be "illegitimate" or not fulfilling their founding mission).
2. Previous and current efforts to overthrow him have been vastly important to the UN because it shows that the UN is:
a. A relevant world body
b. A world body that will authorize and use military force
c. A world body that will make sweeping, unquestionable legislation the violation of which results in the use of military force
d. The results of these issues is that the UN has become a de facto world government body whose will is enforced with military power – the vast majority of that power being the US military.
Far from being “tacit approval”, the use of military force since the Korean War has been ALWAYS under UN jurisdiction if not outright control.


*********************************************
Quote:
Your contention has NOT been supported by President Bush's actions. President Bush has given little but lip service to the UN. Prior to 9-11, this was Europes and the lefts major complaint against the President. Just remember back to the complaints about his not signing the Kyoto Accords or not participating in the conference on racism held in South Africa. They were concerned about a new era of American isolationism similar to the 1930's.

If anything, President Bush's current actions are showing the impotance of the UN!
*********************************************

I would never make the assertion that President Bush is not a man of character and personal honor. Unlike former President Clinton, I believe that President Bush is a man who, at the very least, believes he is doing the best he can for the US. But to say that he has given nothing but “lip service” to the UN is naïve at best.

I will offer up some President Bush quotes that support my position:

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" 12Sept address to the United Nations

Rather than paying just lip service, Mr. Bush assumes that the Security Council resolutions should be honored and enforced. Where is the legal authority behind any SC resolution? Mr. Bush assumes that authority and appears to be gravely concerned that the UN will become irrelevant and that its authority will be thwarted. The question I ask is, “What authority?”

“America is determined to enforce the demands of the United Nations Security Council by confronting the grave and growing danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.” 01March President’s Radio Address

“The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.” 26February Address to the American Enterprise Institute

“Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.” Ibid

President Bush actually cares that the UN retains its (illegitimate) authority and fulfills its purpose. Yes, I agree that Mr. Bush states over and over again that the UN is threatened with becoming irrelevant and impotent if the Hussein issue is not dealt with. Once again, I ask the question, “What relevance? What power? What authority?” Mr. Bush assumes that the UN has a role in world governance and is willing to send American troops to ensure that the UN’s relevance is maintained. Of course he also believes that the use of US troops is in the best interests of the US and that the removal of the Hussein regime is important for our long term security . . . and in principle I agree with the latter. But I do disagree with the spilling of American blood to empower, legitimize, and establish the authority of an illegitimate global legislative body.

*********************************************
Quote:
How can you claim to be a constitutionalist and not trust "ANY government"? The Constitution established our government and the rules that it is to operate under. Our founders understood that government is necessary for the prosperty of our citizens. They also understood the necessity of keeping the government under restraint. This is an eternal struggle well anticipated by these men.

It is appropriate to be concerned about the reach of government and wether or not it is heading in the right direction, but to not trust in "any" government is to wish for anarchy!
*********************************************

Wow, I would recommend reading some historical materials such as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, the writings and speeches of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

The Constitution is the quintessential form of legislated mistrust in human government.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" Thomas Jefferson, 1801 Inaugural Address

The use of “mistrust” or “I do not trust” does not explicitly state or even imply that I am against the Constitutional form of government (republicanism – not Republican Party but a republican form of government – Lex Rex) The most foundational, key, necessary understanding of mistrust of human governments is absolutely necessary to even understand the Constitution. Why have a system of checks and balances? Why a legislative, judicial, and executive branch which can, in times of need, override the others? Why is proposing and enacting a law (at the federal level) so ponderous and time consuming? The answer is that man can and will corrupt even the most well-conceived form of government. In order to thwart or at least slow this process our Constitution was designed to be a force of law which is, at its most fundamental level, mistrustful of human desires for power and control. “Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.” You don’t need to bind a person or an animal in which you have full trust as to their benign intentions. The Constitution is written to control individuals and groups (Executive and Legislative/Judicial) in whom there is no ultimate, blind trust as to their efforts being benign.

Why does the 2nd Amendment even exist? Is it for hunting? Is it solely for self-defense or the defense of state/nation in event of invasion? The answer is a resounding NO. Time and again those who drafted and debated upon the issue of the 2nd Amendment made it abundantly clear that an armed populace is a constant reminder to governments that a free people will use these arms, if necessary, to secure their liberties. An armed populace reserves that right to defend itself from domestic tyranny. I would personally classify this as the ultimate form of mistrust of human government.

*********************************************
Quote:
I just don't understand people who view the UN as this overwhelming danger to our national sovereignty. Over the last 40 years, the UN has lost both power and credibility. The UN used to be considered the savior of the planet when it was first established and was supported by the vast majority of Americans.

The only people who believe this now are the international America haters or the radical anti-American left.
*********************************************

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the UN or those who oppose it.

Contrary to your statement the UN has vastly increased in power and credibility. The US military has been used for over 5 decades as the military arm of this world body. That in itself should be cause for concern and is an irrefutable increase in military power – the US military being the most power military force on earth. The UN has its fingers in almost every pie that exists. Whether or not we have given the UN full operational control over our troops is not the question. The appearance of that control and the use of our troops to enforce UN resolutions is, at the very best, a dangerous precedent to set. The process of “dumbing down” and liberalization of our children (via unConstitutional federal education) has produced the locked-step, save the world, America is the world’s police attitudes that you will get almost everywhere you turn. The credibility of the UN is not even any longer debated at a serious level. Just as shown before, our President assumes that the UN has authority over all nations on earth and is willing to use military force to, at least in part, enforce and legitimize the authority of the UN.

As far as being a threat to the US, I would think that it would be obvious that any organization that claims legislative authority over all nations (whatever their intentions and concerns) is a threat to the sovereignty of the US. One need only look at a few issues such as the International Criminal Court or UNESCO to see that the liberties recognized and guaranteed (not granted) by our Constitution are of little concern to the UN. The UN charter/constitution does not recognize liberties, it grants liberties to individuals. The only thing necessary for the removal of liberties is the stroke of a pen. To continue to empower and legitimize this organization is to legitimize their claims of authority over even the US. What happens when the world council decides that America’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat to world peace? This is not too far fetched in light of the fact that it’s already been published that the prolifieration of small arms (especially in countries such as America where individual firearm ownership is a right) is a threat to world peace. What if we are required to disarm our militaries or our civilians by Security Council Resolution XXXX? The UN will have been authorized and legitimized by our actions in this war. Are we then to turn around and say, “I’m sorry, UN, but we didn’t mean that you have authority over us.” Oh, that could never happen here!

As for my being a radical leftist or an America-hater . . . I just don't know what to say. It's kind of like during the Reconstructionist Period (post-Civil War) where people who talked about the Constitution too much were to be labelled and tried as "traitors." Kind of like the recent Project Megiddo where those who spoke about the Constitution too much were to be treated as potential domestic terrorists. I can remember that when Clinton was in office, those of us who spoke up on Constitutional, America First issues were labelled as patriots and the last bastion of the American right. Now that we're still doing the same thing, but Mr. Bush is President, we've become leftists, America-haters, anti-war commies, terrorists, blah, blah, blah.

My father taught me an important lesson when I was a child, "Son, never seek the approval of men. You may be wrong or you may be right, but always look for your own way. But always know why you went that way."

I may be wrong, unlike most people I am willing to admit that. But at least I'm willing to examine as much evidence as I can get my hands on and then attempt to make my decisions based on fact, not rhetoric.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
Whether or not US forces are used to destroy the Hussein regime is a moot point. I certainly agree that Hussein is the bad guy here. The problem I encounter is that this bad guy:

1. Has become a convenient bad guy in that everyone agrees that he’s a bad guy and should be overthrown (time and time again, just when UN approval is foundering and they appear to be "illegitimate" or not fulfilling their founding mission).
2. Previous and current efforts to overthrow him have been vastly important to the UN because it shows that the UN is:
a. A relevant world body

The most recent calls to overthrow Saddam have been brought about by the actions of President Bush, not the UN feeling unfullfilled. The UN would most likely have just kept ignoring Saddams tyrannical actions without the prodding of President Bush.

If it is so important to the UN that Saddam be overthrown, WHY are they so hesitant? Why didn't they call for his ouster in 1991? Or at any time during the last 12 years? The UN is not calling for his ouster to this very day, the U.S. is!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
Far from being “tacit approval”, the use of military force since the Korean War has been ALWAYS under UN jurisdiction if not outright control.

You have obviously forgotten about the U.S. involvement in Kosovo and Panama. We had NO UN approval for either of these actions, nor was any requested.

You arguement is so circuitious as to defy logic. It appears to me that you are argueing that the only time the U.S. can use force in our national interest is if the UN opposes it!

Ann Coulter argued that the left only approves of U.S. military action if it's NOT in our best interest. You seem to have taken a variation on that theme and argue that U.S. military action is only justifiable if it's NOT in the best interest of the UN!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
I would never make the assertion that President Bush is not a man of character and personal honor. But to say that he has given nothing but “lip service” to the UN is naïve at best.

I will offer up some President Bush quotes that support my position:

What President Bush says about the UN matters little to me. What does matter is his actions!

President Bush has made it abudantly clear that the U.S. will protect it's interests with OR without the UN's approval. This is "lip service" at it's best. Whatever the UN does it comes out the loser now. If they don't grant approval, they become the League of Nations. If they do approve, they prove that the U.S. is the only superpower in the world and that the UN controls nothing. Getting UN approval just gives the President a little political cover.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:Of course he also believes that the use of US troops is in the best interests of the US and that the removal of the Hussein regime is important for our long term security . . . and in principle I agree with the latter. But I do disagree with the spilling of American blood to empower, legitimize, and establish the authority of an illegitimate global legislative body.

Isn't this cutting your nose off to spite your face? You appear willing to endanger U.S. security in order to "stick it" to the UN!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the UN or those who oppose it.

The credibility of the UN is not even any longer debated at a serious level. Just as shown before, our President assumes that the UN has authority over all nations on earth and is willing to use military force to, at least in part, enforce and legitimize the authority of the UN.

If President Bush assumed that the UN has authority over all nation, why has he disagreed with it so much? Why did he not sign the Kyoto Accords? Why were we not active participants in the UN Conferance on Racism? Why did he not agreed to subject U.S. citizens to the authority of the World Court? Why has he not agreed with the UN's desire to sanction Israel? Why has he announced that he will go to war, if necessary, without their approval?

As previously stated, actions speak louder than words! And just to set the record straight, I oppose the UN! It's just that I realize that we will most likely never leave it due to political considerations. However, I don't find it a dire threat. I find it a joke!

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
As far as being a threat to the US, I would think that it would be obvious that any organization that claims legislative authority over all nations (whatever their intentions and concerns) is a threat to the sovereignty of the US. What if we are required to disarm our militaries or our civilians by Security Council Resolution XXXX?

There is a quote by President Andrew Jackson when he was told that the Supreme Court overruled one of his actions. He said: "Then let them enforce it!" The UN can require nothing of us that we don't agree to. What can they do? Pack up their building and go home?

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
As for my being a radical leftist or an America-hater . . . I just don't know what to say.

Who called you an "America-hater" or "radical leftist"? It is obvious that you love our country by your posts, just as I do.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Torso:
But at least I'm willing to examine as much evidence as I can get my hands on and then attempt to make my decisions based on fact, not rhetoric.

But that is precisely what you are doing! You are concerned about President Bush's rhetoric about the UN and ignoring his actions. Put your fears of the UN aside and examine the actions of our President!


__________________
:confused: :confused:

[Minute_Of_Torso]

********************
Quote:
The most recent calls to overthrow Saddam have been brought about by the actions of President Bush, not the UN feeling unfullfilled. The UN would most likely have just kept ignoring Saddams tyrannical actions without the prodding of President Bush.

If it is so important to the UN that Saddam be overthrown, WHY are they so hesitant? Why didn't they call for his ouster in 1991? Or at any time during the last 12 years? The UN is not calling for his ouster to this very day, the U.S. is!
********************

I agree in part but in the President's own words we are responding not only to protect our own interests but also to back up the the UN Security Council resolutions.

********************
Quote:
You have obviously forgotten about the U.S. involvement in Kosovo and Panama. We had NO UN approval for either of these actions, nor was any requested.

You arguement is so circuitious as to defy logic. It appears to me that you are argueing that the only time the U.S. can use force in our national interest is if the UN opposes it!

Ann Coulter argued that the left only approves of U.S. military action if it's NOT in our best interest. You seem to have taken a variation on that theme and argue that U.S. military action is only justifiable if it's NOT in the best interest of the UN!
********************

Gosh, two actions in the last five decades which did not involve UN oversight . . . I guess that proves me wrong. I won't even bring up the 50+ peacekeeping and police actions since 1948.
As for using military force in American interests, I don't even know how you could possibly state that I believe we can only use US forces if the UN is opposed to such! The whole argument is that we use US forces if and only if America's best interests, and Constitutional requirements, are met. Whether or not the UN agrees or disagrees is utterly irrelevant . . that's the WHOLE POINT! Our President seems to think it matters.

**********************
Quote:
What President Bush says about the UN matters little to me. What does matter is his actions!

President Bush has made it abudantly clear that the U.S. will protect it's interests with OR without the UN's approval. This is "lip service" at it's best. Whatever the UN does it comes out the loser now. If they don't grant approval, they become the League of Nations. If they do approve, they prove that the U.S. is the only superpower in the world and that the UN controls nothing. Getting UN approval just gives the President a little political cover.
**********************

As I used to argue when Clinton was President, "Words have meanings." It does matter what Bush says because his words expose his motivations.

I'm glad Bush has decided to protect our best interests . . .but tell the UN to pack sand. We don't need them. We don't want them. Whether they agree or disagree is of no consequence.

Why would Bush need political cover by pandering to an organization that you say is irrelevant and impotent. You only seek permission from a superior, not that which is impotent and irrelevant.

**********************
Quote:
Isn't this cutting your nose off to spite your face? You appear willing to endanger U.S. security in order to "stick it" to the UN!
**********************

You completely misunderstand my point.
1. If Hussein is a threat to America (which I think he is) then destroy him.
2. I've never said that we shouldn't use our military to protect our interests, I just want it done with the world understanding that we don't give a hoot what they think. We are a sovereign nation and are the biggest kid on the block. If you mess with the bull you will get the horns . . . and we don't need ANYONE's permission to do so.
3. My entire adult life has been intimately tied to the war business (active duty, defense industry). I work to design and maintain things that kill people more efficiently and "in a loud, grotesque, military manner". If I were the peacenik, threaten America's security, "hand out daisies for defense" type of guy that I guess some of you think I am, then you are sorely mistaken.

**********************
Quote:
But that is precisely what you are doing! You are concerned about President Bush's rhetoric about the UN and ignoring his actions. Put your fears of the UN aside and examine the actions of our President!
**********************

The actions of our President show me two things:
1. A man who wants to protect our interests by putting over 200,000 troops and several carrier battle groups in the immediate vicinity of a threat to our nation.
2. A man who wants to show that the UN Security Council resolutions are no joking matter by putting over 200,000 troops and several carrier battle groups in the immediate vicinity of a threat to our nation.

Which do I believe? The actions show me that #1 is true and that #2 is true? Which is more important? I see our President talking too much about how the UN needs to be relevant and to have its authority legitimized to believe that #2 is just a smoke screen for "political cover."

****************************
As for the defense of not being a leftist, America-hater . . .that was my misreading of your original post and I apologize for that, but the comments still stand . . . the Constitution and American sovereignty take precedence over supporting any one man or political party without question.

I'm also glad to see that I've cleared up some misunderstandings concerning the Constitution being written out of a fundamental mistrust for human government.

I'm sure that we will have to agree or disagree. The original intent of any of these posts was that in recent months patriotism has been made equal to supporting President Bush without question. Anyone who questions the motives, methods, etc. of the President (out of a desire to ensure that government is actually fulfilling the mandated job of seeking America's best interests and protecting the freedoms of its citizens) is immediately labelled (by many) as being morally deficient, of questionable patriotism or (at worst) of being a supporter of terrorism.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
As I used to argue when Clinton was President, "Words have meanings." It does matter what Bush says because his words expose his motivations.

I'm glad Bush has decided to protect our best interests . . .but tell the UN to pack sand. We don't need them. We don't want them. Whether they agree or disagree is of no consequence.

Yes, words DO have meanings, but I think you may have misunderstood the meanings. Those words have been expressed as a means to an end, not the end itself.

Apparently, you feel that we need no allies in the world because that is exactly what your approach would result in. As powerful as the U.S. is, we still need assistance. We need help from the nations surrounding Iraq, look how our plans are being altered because of Turkey's reluctance. We need assistance from Kuwait and the Saudis whether we like it or not. We will need assistance from other nations after Iraq is defeated.

Sure we could defeat Iraq with no assistance, but at what cost? No nation can stand alone for long. Without assistance from other nations, our battles against al Qaeda would be hamstringed critically.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
Why would Bush need political cover by pandering to an organization that you say is irrelevant and impotent.

Because many of the nations we need assistance from seem to put a great deal of stock in the UN. Look at public opinion polls in the U.S. There is an approximately 20% difference regarding support for war with Iraq when the question of UN backing comes up. No democratic nation can withstand a war effort without the backing of the people.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
The actions of our President show me two things:
1. A man who wants to protect our interests by putting over 200,000 troops and several carrier battle groups in the immediate vicinity of a threat to our nation.
2. A man who wants to show that the UN Security Council resolutions are no joking matter by putting over 200,000 troops and several carrier battle groups in the immediate vicinity of a threat to our nation.

Which do I believe? The actions show me that #1 is true and that #2 is true? Which is more important? I see our President talking too much about how the UN needs to be relevant and to have its authority legitimized to believe that #2 is just a smoke screen for "political cover."

What is important is that we defeat Iraq as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is also important that we do this with as little loss of life, primarily U.S. military but also Iraqi civilian, as possible. If this means that President Bush must blow a little breeze up the skirts of Kofi Annan, so be it!

These Security Council resolutions are just a smoke screen for doing what needs to be done. Without them, President Bush would never get the support of congress OR the American people.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
. . . the Constitution and American sovereignty take precedence over supporting any one man or political party without question.

Who here has stated anything to the contrary? I have no problem questioning our President when I feel he is wrong. On this war however, I feel he is doing a decent job considering all of the obstacles placed before him.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
The original intent of any of these posts was that in recent months patriotism has been made equal to supporting President Bush without question.

Who here has made that condition upon anyones patriotism? Certainly not me. Many anti-war people have the best interest of America in mind with their protests. I think they are wrong! However, you must admit that there are many anti-war protesters that are anti-American and I feel it is important to point this out.

Originally posted by Minute_Of_Angle:
Anyone who questions the motives, methods, etc. of the President is immediately labelled (by many) as being morally deficient, of questionable patriotism or (at worst) of being a supporter of terrorism.

I only label those who are anti-American. Those that compare President Bush to Hitler, those that say we are an imperialist nation, those that refuse to criticize Saddam Hussain and those that use these protests to further their socialist causes or commit violence against police or property.




__________________

[Minute_Of_Torso]

Cactus:

I think, sir, that we can agree to disagree.

I agree that Hussein needs to be taken care of, I agree that we are the ones who should do it. I want it to be swift, sure, and final with as little loss of human life as possible. Our nation has gone many years without having to endure the sight of body bags by the hundreds and thousands being offloaded from transports. We should have taken care of this situation over a decade ago and I hope we take care of it now.

I disagree as to our President's "disregard" of the UN and I believe that he believes that global governance under the authority of the UN is not entirely a bad thing as long as he thinks that the US will maintain some control of the situation.

I also agree with you about "socialist causes" which is exactly why I oppose the UN which is and always has been a stalwart of socialist causes.

The question of the loss of allies is another issue which I don't even want to broach here. Would we for sure lose, as you put it, ALL of our allies? I'm not so sure that your answer is the guaranteed conclusion.

I agree with you that Bush needs to be seen as enforcing the UN Security Council resolutions to get the support of Congress and the American people . . . what a sad state of affairs for our nation. Attacked on our own soil and we have to look for concurrence from a foreign legislative body to defend ourselves. I would hazard a guess that this weakness of spirit is only the vocal minority . . . I would hope that there are many more who agree that the UN is and always has been irrelevant.

[JoeSF]

Its time to do away with tenure for college professors. They have forgotten that they are on the public payroll and the public deserves more than lunatics educating their children.