Anti-War Puppet?

[Ron Lambert]

That's interesting Shane; that one slipped by me, when Congress set for itself such an informal way to declare war by "authorizing the use of force." That in turn could be construed to include any vote to appropriate funds to finanace a military conflict that may be on-going. I knew of course that Congress could do this, because it has been doing it, and no one has called them on it on Constitutional grounds. But this is the first I have realized that this indirect authorization can actually be considered a way of declaring war in keeping with the Constitution.

So the point seems to be made that the war in Iraq was legal, was authorized by a declaration of war, even though that exact term was never used.

[Bravus]

Legal under US law, illegal under international law. That's my claim and the opinion of quite a lot of international lawyers, but make of it what you will.

[Ron Lambert]

Other nations have no choice but to understand and recognize what U.S. law regards as a legal waging of war, because this is what governs our behavior. What other nations may call international law has no weight as far as the U.S. is concerned. It is ludicrous to suppose that the U.S. would allow foreign nations to dictate to it how and when it can wield military power. It would be extremely arrogant for them to even think they could have the power to do that.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bravus, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he authorised US and Brittish forces to patrol no fly zones in the north and south part of Iraq. On many occations he fired at US and Brittish planes patrolling the no fly zones and on some occations even shot down the aircraft. The US had the legal right under international law to patrol those no-fly zones. When Saddam shot down their planes wasn't that an act of aggression on the part of Saddam?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Brother Bravus, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement in which he authorised US and Brittish forces to patrol no fly zones in the north and south part of Iraq. On many occations he fired at US and Brittish planes patrolling the no fly zones and on some occations even shot down the aircraft. The US had the legal right under international law to patrol those no-fly zones. When Saddam shot down their planes wasn't that an act of aggression on the part of Saddam?

---

It was and each of those incidents were dealt with under the admimistrations of Bush I and Clinton.

So, what was it again that caused us to go to war under Bush the II with Iraq???? Saddam was contained. He was NO IMMEDIATE Threat to the US. Inspectors were telling us that there were no indications of WMDs and NO ONE in the ADMINISTRATION was telling the public that Saddam WAS complying because no one in the Administration wanted to believe that the Inspectors were correct. They wanted a war, period. End of story. They decieved the US public and manipulated the information that there was a WMD and they "know where they were"....

[Dr. Shane]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, Saddam shot down a US aircraft just days before the invation. Bush the elder wasn't President at the time. Clinton wasn't President at the time. Guess who? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, Saddam shot down a US aircraft just days before the invation. Bush the elder wasn't President at the time. Clinton wasn't President at the time. Guess who?

---

If I remember correctly, that instilation shot AT a plane, but did not hit it. And that instillation was destroyed by the plane. Hardly something to go to war over even it was only one plane.

[Dr. Shane]

The plane did go down. It was unmanned (yep, one of those expensive ones <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> ). It was only one in a long list of violations of the cease-fire agreement. So sad that man had to bring war on his nation like that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The plane did go down. It was unmanned (yep, one of those expensive ones

). It was only one in a long list of violations of the cease-fire agreement. So sad that man had to bring war on his nation like that.

---

So we went to war over an unmmaned plane??????

What type of reasoning is this??? And remember, those other incidences were dealt with in other administrations. So, you can not use them as "long lists of violations"....

Again, Saddam was contained. There was no immediate threat.

You have no choice but to believe that we are in an immoral war, brought about by our own goverment who lied to the American people. What is the difference between Bushes Administration and Saddam's administration????

[there buster]

Have some respect for yourself and the rest of us, Neil.

The "long list of violations" wasn't against an administration. Surely you can't really be that obtuse. The violations were against a treaty, and that treaty was with the U.S.--the nation, you know? Any single one of those violations would have been sufficient to warrant whatever eaction we deemed necessary to satisfy the treaty conditions.

Eventually it became clear that Sadaam was never going to honor the treaty.

If your neighbor kept dumping garbage on your yard, and had been doing so for years, eventually you would go to the police or to court, or whatever you needed to do to get relief. It wouldn't be for the last single episode, but for the continual violations.

This would be obvious to any 7th grader who wasn't just having a tantrum.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Have some respect for yourself and the rest of us, Neil.

---

I am gonna ask for help here. Someone tell me ... does the above come accross as a bullying statement? I am probably too close to this to be able to say so I am asking for help here to decide if this is a bullying statemnet

Quote:

---

The "long list of violations" wasn't against an administration. Surely you can't really be that obtuse. The violations were against a treaty, and that treaty was with the U.S.--the nation, you know? Any single one of those violations would have been sufficient to warrant whatever eaction we deemed necessary to satisfy the treaty conditions.

---

In context with Shane's comments, the adminstrations, as official representatives of the United States, dealt with the problems and violations as they saw fit. And there were periods where Saddam did NOT attempt to test American resolve. This problem went for nearly 10 years. It was only during the threat of immenant invasion that made Saddam concur with the pervissons of the treaty. And it appears that he was fulfilling his part of the treaty before we invaded.

So the ludicrous observation is that we went to war over an unmanned plane downing. For that one unmanned plane, we have over 1800 human deaths...So, tell me again, what was the reason for that war?????

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

:

Have some respect for yourself and the rest of us, Neil.

---

I am gonna ask for help here. Someone tell me ... does the above come accross as a bullying statement? I am probably too close to this to be able to say so I am asking for help here to decide if this is a bullying statemnet

---

---

Dream sequence:

Mommy, mommy! He told me to respect myself!

Why, the unconscionable bully! How dare he?!! You don't have to respect yourself if you don't want to, no matter what some cruel bully says to you.

End dream sequence.

Quote:

---

So the ludicrous observation is that we went to war over an unmanned plane downing. For that one unmanned plane, we have over 1800 human deaths...So, tell me again, what was the reason for that war?????

---

AS was explained, it was not for any single incident, but for a pattern of behavior, of which any single incident would have been sufficient cause.

In any court, a pattern of behavior is considered evidence. Since you refuse to credit the evidence, that's your problem. It's not that the explanation hasn't been given, it's that you don't want to accept it. That, of course, is your privilege. It is also your problem.

Any 5YO can ask why? why? why? and refuse to credit the answer. It proves nothing about the evidence, but quite a bit about the questioner.

[Dr. Shane]

The reason the unmanned plane was there in the first place is because Saddam was shooting at our pilots in their planes. But no, the war was not over the unmanned plane getting shot down. We must agree to disagree that the earlier violations of the peace treaty had been dealt with. I do not even agree that the attempted assasination of a former US President was dealt with.

While there was no "immediate threat", it was precieved that there was an "immediate threat" because Saddam led the world to believe he had WMDs. Let's not forget that when we went to war with Iraq, John Kerry, Tom Dashel and Hiliary Clinton were all on board. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.

I don't think it is intellectually honest to say Saddam was contained since he was bribing UN Security Council members in order to get sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs. He may have appeared to be contained. However with what we have learned since the invation, we now know he was not.

So we thought we knew two things that were not true. Saddam didn't have WMDs and he was not contained. Although our main reason for invading turned out to be wrong, what we discovered once we got in justified the action. the world is much safer without Saddam in power.

My frustration is 1) why wasn't the insurgent jihad anticipated? and 2) why is it taking so long to trane in the Iraqi army to take over?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

:

Have some respect for yourself and the rest of us, Neil.

---

I am gonna ask for help here. Someone tell me ... does the above come accross as a bullying statement? I am probably too close to this to be able to say so I am asking for help here to decide if this is a bullying statemnet

---

Dream sequence:

Mommy, mommy! He told me to respect myself!

Why, the unconscionable bully! How dare he?!! You don't have to respect yourself if you don't want to, no matter what some cruel bully says to you.

End dream sequence.

---

According to the National Crime Prevention Council, "Bullying is a continuum ob behaviors that ranges from name-calling to assuault." While we can not deal with assualt on the board, we can deal with the other side of bullying, that of the "social/emotional bullying". It includes "gossiping, name-calling, public humiliating the victim or convincing other to reject or isolate the victim.

What you are doing is bullying, Ed. And the National Crime Preventing Council has put forward some broachures and asked teachers to stop this stuff before kids see it as a way of life. Studies show that 1 in 4 bullys will have a criminal record by the age of 30. [NCRP, Olweus, Dan. Bullying at School" What we Know and What we Can Do. Oxford'Blackwell, 1993.)

What you have done here, is simply be a bully on this board. And I, for one, am tired of it. I have asked you to stop it, MORE THAN ONCE. But you refuse to do so. So, I have asked others to voice thier concerns. Perhaps, if others were to say something, you might get the idea that there are others here who do not like it when you bully. There are other ways of communicating to express your displeasure without being a bully, Ed. You are a writer, and I have suggested you use those powers that God have given you to better use.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Studies show that 1 in 4 bullys will have a criminal record by the age of 30.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Brother Ed, I have to ask... Are you past the age of 30? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/Nixe_nixe02b.gif" alt="" />

In all seriousness here. Let's play nice. Can we do that? Hmmmmmm, maybe that question goes better unanswered.

[there buster]

When requiring someone to be respectful--to himself-- becomes "bullying," we've gone completely through the looking glass.

I have engaged in neither name-calling, nor any type of assault.

Just declaring something to be so, doesn't make it so.

You're attempting to make something look absurd, by your claim that the war was started over a single unmanned aircraft.

My dream sequence just pointed out that your claim of bullying is absurd.

I've worked with legislatures, governors, universities, consulted with business. I've been appointed by governors to work on task forces because of my ability to restore relationships ruined by others. I've helped businesses and even quarrelling churches come up with viable mission statements. I know how adults work successfully together.

I've been a school principal as well as classroom teacher.

I know what bullying is and isn't. I was routinely assigned to problem schools expressly to get rid of bullying, because I knew how to do so. One of the more common techniques among bullies is to turn victim whenever their will is crossed. The worst adult abusers commonly do so when called to account.

Children who grow up in abusive homes consider that behavior normal, and are the first to cry "foul" and "bully" when they are called to account. They've been used to getting their way, and believe only terrible injustice can be the cause of their frustrations.

Poor administrators, fearful of the name-calling of children, let it go. Effective administrators point out the fallacy, enforce just standards, and eventually take care of things.

I scrupulously avoid personal characterization, evil surmising concerning motives, describing someone's Christian experience in negative terms, name-calling--all of which occur on CA with regularity. Until we enter an alternative universe, those are bullying behaviors. Pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments is not--even arguments about bullies.

As far as expressing my displeasure, you're simply mistaken. I wasn't expressing displeasure, I was brushing aside a spurious argument.

I'm happy to discuss the evidence and the logic concerning the Sheehan case, Neil. But we have to discuss the evidence and logic coherently and respectfully, or there's no discussion. We can agree to disagree, or we can move forward, but simply shouting the same argument, over and over, is not progress.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Tone-Deafness Among Democrats

By George F. Will

Thursday, August 25, 2005;

Sad yet riveting, like a wreck by the side of the road, Cindy Sheehan, a plaything of her own sincerities and other people's opportunisms, has already been largely erased from the national memory by new waves of media fickleness in the service of the public's summer ennui. But before she becomes fully relegated to the role of opening act for more durable luminaries at antiwar rallies, prudent Democrats -- those political snail darters, the emblematic endangered species of American politics -- should consider the possibility that, although she was a burr under the president's saddle for several weeks, she is symptomatic of something that in 2008 could cause the Democratic Party a sixth loss in eight presidential elections. That something is a shrillness unlike anything heard in living memory from a major tendency within a major party.

Many warmhearted and mildly attentive Americans say the president should have invited Sheehan to his kitchen table in Crawford for a cup of coffee and a serving of that low-calorie staple of democratic sentimentality -- "dialogue." Well.

Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a "lying bastard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "fuehrer" and the world's "biggest terrorist" who is committing "blatant genocide" and "waging a nuclear war" in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her recent e-mails -- elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into ferocious left-wing rhetoric -- it is difficult to imagine how the dialogue would get going.

He: "Cream and sugar?"

She: "Yes, please, filth-spewer."

Do Democrats really want to embrace her variation of the Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" school of political discourse? Evidently, yes, judging by the attendance of 12 Democratic senators at that movie's D.C. premiere in June 2004, and by the lionizing of Moore at the Democratic Convention -- the ovation, the seating of him with Jimmy Carter.

If liberals think that such flirtations with fanaticism had nothing to do with their 2004 defeat, they probably have nothing to learn from what conservatives did four decades earlier. But for the record:

In the 1960s, just as conservatism was beginning to grow from a fringe tendency into what it has become -- the nation's most potent persuasion -- it was threatened by a boarding party of people not much, if any, loonier than Sheehan. The John Birch Society, whose catechism included the novel tenet that Dwight Eisenhower was an agent of the Kremlin, was not numerous -- its membership probably never numbered more than 100,000 -- but its power to taint all of conservatism was huge, particularly given the media's eagerness to abet the tainting. Responsible conservatives, especially William F. Buckley Jr. and his National Review, repelled the boarders, driving them into the dark cave where today they ferociously guard the secret of their size from a nation no longer curious about it.

MoveOn.org, which claims 3.3 million members and is becoming a tone-setting tail that wags the Democratic Party dog -- a dog that is mostly such tails -- adopted Sheehan during her Crawford demonstration, organizing 1,627 vigils around the country to express solidarity with her. But the Democratic Party, whose democratically elected chairman is Howard ("I Hate the Republicans and Everything They Stand For") Dean, is not ripe for lessons in temperate rhetoric, which may be why the Republican Party has far fewer worries than it deserves.

It is showing signs of becoming an exhausted volcano. Regarding Iraq, it is mistaking truculent asperity and tiresome repetition for Churchillian wartime eloquence. Regarding domestic policy, intellectual anemia has given rise to behavioral patterns not easily distinguished from corruption, as with the energy and transportation bills. Yet the Democratic Party, which by now can hardly remember the far-distant past when it was a volcano not of molten rhetoric but of serious thought, seems preoccupied with the chafing around its neck. The chafing is caused by the leashes firmly gripped and impudently jerked by various groups such as MoveOn.org that insist the party adopt hysteria as a policy by treating the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as a dire threat to liberty.

If Hillary Clinton has half the political sense her enthusiasts ascribe to her, she must be deeply anxious lest all her ongoing attempts to adopt moderation as her brand will be nullified by the increasing inclination of her party's base to succumb to siren songs sung by the likes of Sheehan. But, then, a rapidly growing portion of the base is not just succumbing to those songs, it is singing them.

---

[Ron Lambert]

I've always appreciated George F. Will's insightful writings.

I wonder if it is really a good idea to warn Democrats about the foolish mistakes they are making by embracing intemperate extremism. Do we really want them to avoid being marginalized, when they so clearly deserve to be?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Do we really want them to avoid being marginalized, when they so clearly deserve to be?

---

Absolutely. A responsible opposition is essential to the health of the republic.

The problem is that the responsible Democrats have been marginalized. There is no Scoop Jackson--or even a John Kennedy, for that matter-- not to mention a Harry Truman, in the Democratic party.

Will's analogy with the John Bircher's is frighteningly accurate. The Democrats have become the party of paranoid pacifism--seeing dark conspiracies everywhere.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

AS was explained, it was not for any single incident, but for a pattern of behavior, of which any single incident would have been sufficient cause.

---

And what has been explained, each incidence was dealt with by the current administration when it happened. What is not realized is that diplomatically speaking, each incident that occurs is dealt with and concidered done. If you want to go to war, you bring up that list where all incidences are renamed with vehemence and then declare war. Which is what the Bush Administration did.

Quote:

---

In any court, a pattern of behavior is considered evidence. Since you refuse to credit the evidence, that's your problem. It's not that the explanation hasn't been given, it's that you don't want to accept it. That, of course, is your privilege. It is also your problem.

---

Ok, then why don't we go to war with Russia, or Korea or with all the other nations that have repeatedly cause incidences. Russia has shot down our planes, caused Cuba to go communist, nearly threatened the US with Nuclear Warheads. Korea is telling thier population that we are causing thier starvation and that we want to invade thier country. Now, based upon thier history in propoganda against the US, they are threating us with nukes by making them.

The principle that you are espousing is that a list of infractious behaviors is enough to cause a war. During the last few years of the occupation, the worst incidence was a downed unmaned airplane. In your view, downing 5 unmanned airplanes is enough to cause a war? Or is that a deplomatic problem where the US levels "strong concerns"? And does that "long list" have a time limit on it? Sure, I can see 5 unmanned aircraft being downed is enough for the US to go into an area of Iraq and take out the whole military instilation immediately [read 'within one year]. But I question that same action is justified if it is 7 years later.

Hopefully, you can see, that Saddam was contained when we went in in 2002. Justification was done by manipulating the information to the public, aka lying to the public. My conclusion is that we now have another Vietnam, ie an immoral war.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

each incidence was dealt with by the current administration when it happened.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is by no means something that is agreed upon. In fact, it is very much so disbuted.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hopefully, you can see, that Saddam was contained when we went in in 2002

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Since Saddam was bribing UN Security Council members to get the sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs, I can hardly agree that he was contained. He was playing us for fools and he bluffed the wrong President at the wrong time. Too bad he wasn't as smart of Castro when he backed down from President Kennedy.

[Neil D]

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/SheehanFinal01.jpg[/]

The group shot from Crawford Texas, where Cindy Sheehan was located.

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/CindyCountryDUsafe.jpg[/]

A recent bumper sticker that was sent to Cindy Sheehan shown in Crawford.

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/SheehanFinal03.jpg[/]

One of the photos from Cindy Sheehan's camp.

[Neil D]

Some other images....

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/SheehanFinal06.jpg[/]

Bloggers talking from Camp Casey.

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/SheehanFinal08.jpg[/]

Other crowd shots...

[]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/derby378/SheehanFinal09.jpg[/]

And some entertainers at Camp Casey.

[Neil D]

Quad City Times

[Bravus]

From Salon (but they didn't do the polling):

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Sheehan's numbers? Better than Bush's

George W. Bush says that he's met with the families of a lot of fallen soldiers and that Cindy Sheehan "doesn't represent the view of a lot" of them. We have no way of knowing one way or another, of course: The meetings are closed to the press, so it's hard to know what family members have told the president, let alone what they actually think.

But thanks to the wonders of modern polling, we do know what American families think more generally, and it turns out that Cindy Sheehan does indeed "represent the view" of a lot of them. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a majority of Americans say they support what Cindy Sheehan is doing in Crawford.

The president can only dream about poll numbers like Sheehan's. While Americans support Cindy Sheehan's actions on Iraq by a margin of 53 to 42 percent, the latest AP-Ipsos Poll shows they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq by a margin of 58 to 37 percent.

Memo to the right: The demonization of Cindy Sheehan is working just about as well as the president's plan for Iraq. Perhaps it's time to reconsider both.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">