Jeffjoe: Phillip had stated: "Again, compared to World War II and other major wars of past generations, civilian casualties are virtually non-existent in Iraq. "Surgical strikes" with smart bombs have minimized civilian deaths (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims made by anti-war groups like Amnesty International)." His suggestion was that anti-war groups cannot be trusted to accurately report civilian casualties precisely because they are anti-war. Not only did I find this funny because I had supposed that everyone was anti-war at least in theory, but groups like Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch, etc, are known to have some of the most accurate reporting on such figures. If you really want to be suspect of anyone you would want to question the group that had the greatest interest in the war, which is obviously the U.S., not groups like the above. These groups know they won't be able to stop the war (just as they have never stopped any other war) and they know there will be more wars. They are primarily there to document what takes place on both sides. Thus, they would most likely be the most accurate source of such casualties. As for smart bombs, they're only as good as the information they are fed. Here is a little piece from Slate.com on the subject: "Smart Bombs, Dumb TargetsDid overconfidence in precision targeting cause civilian deaths in Iraq? A new report by Human Rights Watch reveals, for the first time, just how persistently they tried to kill individual Iraqi leaders in this manner—and how consistently they failed.Over the course of the war, U.S. air forces mounted 50 so-called "decapitation strikes." The bombs accidentally killed several dozen civilians who happened to be near the explosions, but they killed none of the Iraqi leaders they were intended to strike.he problem was not with the bombs. The bombs were as accurate as advertised; they hit precisely where they were aimed. The problem was with the pre-strike intelligence; the Iraqi leaders—the bombs' targets—turned out to be someplace else." Not the best time to be an American.
"Unfortunately" I am goint to Europe for a vacation in a week. I probably won't have to worry about the plane trip, but we're hitting many of the big cities in Europe. At least I won't have to worry about Spain seeing as how they ran away from Iraq with their tail between their legs around the same time that the terrorists told them to get out.
Too much stuff going on for me to read it all, but I heard something about civilian casualties. Did at least 1 innocent Iraqi die cause of this war? Yes. Did Saddam kill this Iraqi? No. So obviously this war wasn't that great for this Iraqi
But since you bring up the issue, is it legitimate for a minority-elected president to wage a war that Congress did not declare to be a war? Why didn't they declare war if the justification is a clear and undisputed as some would suggest.
That Saddam may have had time to move WMD's to a different simply points to the fact that other countries are as equally deserving of war as Iraq, but that Bush is selectively discriminating. Why not Saudi Arabia if its all about democracy? Why not N Koreak with its nukes? This could go on and on. And are we really going to go to war with the whole middle east?
Quote from: jeffjoe on April 26, 2004, 08:09:13 AMBut since you bring up the issue, is it legitimate for a minority-elected president to wage a war that Congress did not declare to be a war? Why didn't they declare war if the justification is a clear and undisputed as some would suggest.First of all, the President was not "minority-elected." He won a majority of the electoral votes. If you have a problem with our Constitutional system, take it up with James Madison and company. The President won every recount that was ever done in Florida, and I don't want to get into "Bush stole the election" arguments.Secondly, Congress DID pass a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. It didn't bear the title "Declaration of war," but as I'm sure you know, there has been no official "Declaration of war" since World War II, and there's various reasons for this having nothing to do with the merits of the Iraqi war. Incidentally, there's nothing in the Constitution specifically defining what constitutes a declaration of war. If Congress passes a resolution authorizing military force, that sounds like a declaration of war to me, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise. Further, Congress has AFFIRMED its initial declaration by passing supplemental spending bills supporting the war (You know, the $87 billion that Kerry voted for, before he voted against?)Thirdly, the war is "legitimate" in the sense that a majority of the public supports it (and interestingly, support for the war has gone UP slightly in recent weeks, even in the face of increasing difficulties). The war is legitimate because the overwhelming majority in Congress support it. The U.S. is a republic, and the actions of Congress reflect the will of the majority.
First, he is a minority president in that he received a minority of the popular vote.