U.S. Presidential Election. Who would you choose?

Well we seem to have a different experience of the anti-war movement. Most people I've heard express an opinion hav been opposed to it for very fundamental reasons.

I think that's a profound simplification of my position. My main reason for being opposed to the war is that I do not believe there is sufficient justification for it. If you go to war with a county, there should be a reason, surely? I've yet to see sufficient reason. At the moment, the US/UK argument seems to boil down to the Iraqi regime being unpleasant. If that was indeed the reason for the war, then the case should've been argued on that basis from the start. It wasn't. The justification for the war was the removal of weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, if the war's about removing an unpleasant regime, then I can think of other countries which should've been a more pressing priority. And if it is about removing unpleasant regimes, why aren't we looking towards invading other countries?

Yes, the killing is unpleasant. However, I'm not a pacifist, and accept in principle the notion of a moral war. I simply don't believe that Iraq qualifies in that regard.

Absolutely. Opinions make the world go round. Like you say though, I like to pull them apart - when they're ill-founded or poorly constructed. I consider it a duty to encourage people to apply rigorous logic to their thinking on important issues.

What are you referring to? Haliburton? Cheney? Well I do have an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. Seeing as I've not looked into the issue particularly deeply, there's no point me expressing an opinion that I'd be poorly equipped to justify. I don't enter into discussions about subjects unless I know enough about them to actually contribute something of value.

No problem.

 

well this is why i asked if you know any sites that i could look through that would make me less harsh on anti war people...don't realy want to be hanging in my town centre saying i don't think this war is wrong..can anyone explain why i maybe wrong..

Yeah but you have not said any other reasons , and i did ask , but you just said you had already outlined them so....
Thats not true ... who is simplfying now.

Plus the multitude of resolutions he has broken ... i almost see the dossiers as a side issue ... i was convinced by the r:1441 ...something that does not get mentioned enough...do you have any answers why ?? WMD well this is the holly grail and the crux for many people..if people knew they were not their from day one wow..they have powerful inteligence ... i would love to know were they got theis information from ..sure we could have waited longer , but for how long ?

This 'war' started a long time ago and it was avoidable if saddam had not lied .... I am sure you could think of other regimes , i am sure the same protest would be mounted by some group somewere ?

Unfortunatly i think we don't have morale wars anymore.

shucks well it was a off hand comment , glad i had the chance to explain a bit better, I am glad because i still believe it to be true...i hope you know what i mean ?? if you don't then shucks i aint got a lot left to try and explain.

Your too modest , i am sure you know more that you let on .... of value well i do try , just because you don't agree does not make what i said valueless ..but i am sure your not talking about me in particular .

phew....

 

I already explained the reasons for my opposition to the war. Let me refresh your memory:

Let me make a suggestion. Go away and look up how many UN resolutions Israel is in violation of and then tell me that we're being even-handed in the way we treat countries that breach UN resolutions.

It was obvious to any fool or halfwit that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It didn't serve their interests at that stage. It's not as though the facts haven't ended up bearing us out on this position, is it? Added to which, since when is possession of WMD sufficient reason for overthrowing a sovereign government? Why aren't we at war with Russia? Or China? Or Israel? Or France? If the possession of WMD was our reason for going to war (as stated), then surely we could only single out Iraq if they actually had an intention to use such weapons? Or else what's the difference between them and anyone else?

Oh dear. Did he tell a fib? Best invade his country and kill thousands of people then, eh?

This 'war' started because of oil. Simple. America wants to secure its strategic oil supply. Bush was chomping and the bit to invade Iraq as soon as he entered the Whitehouse. There's never been anything but the flimsiest of evidence that Iraq possesses WMD, and there's certainly been no evidence that it had any intent of using such weapons against the West. I mean for fucks sake, what would it stand to gain? Guaranteed invasion? Smart!

I think I understand what you're trying to get at. You're just not expressing it very well. I think you're saying that you believe some people ignore factual evidence in favour of theories that they'd rather believe? If so, then I agree with you. However, some people on both side of the debate are guilty of the same thing.

I wasn't talking about you at all. I was just explaining why I don't choose to discuss an issue that I've never bothered to look into in any depth.

 

yeah thats what i was getting at .. and yeah i am glad we agree ..

Personaly i think i explained myself quite well from the start looking over it again...

I knew that you were being modest and a little rant was within you..not saying your wrong or right.. i will look into what you say .

 

Doktor, I mean NO disrespect to you kynd sir. It is NOT a "US Election". It is more of a "US FICTION". At least, that's how I feel. They tell us what they WANT us to belive, thinking we'll be better off.

God save Queen Elizabeth!

Your Majesty, my sword is yours.

 

you know, it is soo weird that we are a "democracy" with a monarch...

 

but its nice that we have a monarch.. because she is a representation of the country.. so we can be patriotic without being patriotic to a political view.. where-as evry1 in america.. when they are patriotic, they are patriotic toward the president at the time so therefore towards a political stance.

still think she's a waste of space, time and money tho

 

hahahahaha

 

I find it simpler to just not do patriotism.

 

Don't forget there is also Michael Badnarik on the Libertarian ticket, Michael Peroutka on the Constitution ticket, and David Cobb on the Green ticket.

Nader is not the only 3rd party candidate running.

 

yup me too..
but some people join the armed forces and its nicer for them to be patriotic to a country rather than a political persuasion they may not agree with.

 

So you're saying the monarchy makes it easier to kill people for your country?

 

well yeah i guess i am... god another reason for me to hate the monarchy.. cheers dok

 

Smartie actually makes a really good point! Following 9/11 many Americans became very patriotic and rallied around their head of state ... their head of state being a partisan politician with his own political agenda. So they rallied around a right wing agenda which became for them synonymous with loving their country. If such an attack happened here, many people would become very pro-British but people would tend to rally around their symbolic head of state, not their politically partisan Prime Minister. So there is a very sound case for having a non-partisan head of state.

Having said this, the Queen and the royal family must die. But a non-political head of state can serve a purpose by seperating politics from patriotism. To criticise Bush in America is to be "un-American". To criticise Blair is not to be "un-British"; this is at least in part to do with our seperation of politics from the identity of "the state".

 

ooo cheers jon.. some1 agrees with me.. excelent. i sleep sounder at night knowing that at least some of the time i'm not talking complete bollox.

 

i think evry1 in america should vote for me.. yay!!!

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>Unfortunatly i think we don't have morale wars anymore<<<<


Hmmm.... what were the moral wars just out of interest?

 

>>>>>>To criticise Blair is not to be "un-British"; this is at least in part to do with our seperation of politics from the identity of "the state".<<<<<


Heh. I criticise Blair AND The Queen. Looks like I'm un-British. Oh well

 

>>>>>Why aren't we at war with Russia? Or China? Or Israel? Or France? If the possession of WMD was our reason for going to war (as stated), then surely we could only single out Iraq if they actually had an intention to use such weapons? Or else what's the difference between them and anyone else?<<<<<<


I suspect the reasons for this are:

a) Russia, China and Israel are big fish, essentially. They all either have a very large military force, a very strong military arsenal, or both. The war coalition would have a REAL fight on their hands if they were to go to war with these countries. I think the coalition, even if they were having very sour relations with the likes of China or Russia, would be desperate to remain content with passive methods of resolving the dispute. The reasons for which, I'm giving as we speak. Besides, why the hell would the US want to go to war with Israel? Arguably their closest ally? So, might as well attack small targets like Iraq. How convenient...

b) Clearly Bush and co. have some sort of vendetta against the Arab world. They're cool for countries which aren't predominantly islamic or predominantly communist to have WMD but the likes of Iraq? Oh no, I don't think so.

There may be other reasons. I'd say they could be the main 2. But as far as coalition are concerned, some nations can have them (WDMs, I mean) and some can't. If you ask me, no nation should have them.

 

Obviously the epithet "un-American" is meaningless in itself, but it gets bandied around a lot in times of perceived national crisis, because to criticise the politics of the presidency is to criticise the country. Whereas even those of us who criticise the monarchy are not necessarily called "un-British" because most people know that the Queen is merely a symbolic head of state and doesn't really matter. But a non-partisan symbol of Britain is valuable if it stops our politics getting as screwed up as America's. I'd rather we did entirely without patriotism, but it's a fact of life and is not going to change anytime soon...