I want to change direction slightly -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:19:25 03/14/03 Fri
Author: Richard
Author Host/IP: cpe-gan-68-101-88-174-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com / 68.101.88.174
Subject:

I want to change direction slightly
In reply to: Arkady 's message, "Re: Is the UN a bad idea? You decide" on 06:54:00 03/14/03 Fri

Hi Michael,

You have an argument although I think it is a moot point. It seems that you need a operational definition of war and we don't have one. Are targeted strikes war? All strikes are targeted. Does an invasion of air space constitute war? Whether we use aircraft or cruise missiles, both constitute an invasion of air space. It sounds to me that your definition of war centers on the use of ground troops. We could go 'round and 'round on this issue and never come to a conclusion. The War Powers Act appears to me limit the powers of the president to abuse his authority as Commander-in-Chief. It requires the president to keep Congress fully informed in a timely manner so they can impose their own will on military action.

I want to change direction slightly, since you have made all these points. This is not aimed at you per se. Rather it is a suspicion of the entire liberal position on the pending action in Iraq. Liberals have made quite of few arguments against any action in Iraq. Most are of an emotional nature. That is, they point out the human cost of military action. Some are based on a moral premise. These have to do with a 'just wars' v 'unjust wars'. Then there is the argument regarding international law. Finally, we have your argument that only Congress can declare war and therefore President Bush is acting outside of his constitutional authority.

Individually, one can make an argument for each of these. Who couldn't? But by strictly focusing on these individually, you ignore the larger issue of our national security. I don't think you would argue that Iraq is not a threat to our security. And we will never have a perfect war that does not entail human cost, can be considered morally acceptable by everyone, and completely legal.

Then we have the problem of inconsistency. It takes a very sharp legal, moral, and emotional scalpel make a distinction between Iraq and places like Kosovo or Bosnia. But when you take all these arguments together, you get a constent theme. And I hate to say it, but it is purely political. My question to you is to explain how, in light of my comments above, criticism of President Bush isn't borne of politics? Can you convince me that the liberal support of (or at least lack of opposition to) military action in Southern Europe and opposition to military action in Iraq is not based on liberal dislike of President Bush and support for President Clinton.

Richard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: I want to change direction slightly -- Arkady, 13:01:51 03/14/03 Fri
- That doesn't convince me -- Richard, 15:01:37 03/14/03 Fri
  - Re: That doesn't convince me -- Arkady, 19:11:58 03/14/03 Fri