Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Second Thread Title Change -- Club Gary Busey Thread  (Read 3787 times)

hammer101

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
    • View Profile
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #60 on: August 09, 2005, 04:06:56 PM »
it appears?  or it's been factually proven that Bush lied Tex?  i think you were correct when you used the former.  you can't base a point on conjecture.

c'mon man. I'll call a rotten egg a rotten egg when we all know it is: Clinton was a scumbag who scammed in business deals (whitewater), scammed girls in the whitehouse, and may have even wagged the dog a bit with his sudden need to get tough on terrorists and shoot a bunch of missiles conveniently during the middle of the Lewinsky affair.

We all know it now. Something very fishy was going on in the white house during the decision to go to war in Iraq. There was clearly a lot of dishonesty and underhandedness (valery plaime, etc. etc.). If each side is unwilling to criticize its own when its side is clearly being an ass, we're never going to get anywhere.

Tex,
Sorry I'm jumping into this discussion a little late, but I find the implications of your arguments interesting. I've read many posts in the "bush lied" vein on this board and I generally don't reply to them because they're so asinine they don't deserve a response.

Yours are well-reasoned and have led to a pretty interesting discussion I'd like to continue.

While the administration clearly had its sights set on saddam, that doesn't mean it necessarily lied to marshal support for the war. My personal view (and yes I'm a Republican, but I had deep reservations about the war when it began and was hoping the administration would hold off for at least a few months) is not that they lied, but rather argued ineptly (and on extremely narrow grounds) for the war. You imply their discussion of saddam's potential nuclear capacity was a gimmick which failed, leading them to "lower the bar" to WMDs in general -- but perhaps it's something far less sinister like, say, a poorly-organized PR campaign for selling the war to the American people? Also, I'm an avid newspaper reader and I think you're overhyping the amount of attention the administration paid to saddam's potential nuclear capacity. I just don't recall that much discussion of the issue.

But as to the larger WMDs issue -- virtually no one questioned saddam's possession of stockpiles, including saddam himself. In interviews since his capture, saddam's foreign minister tariq aziz said his boss purposefully exaggerated his military capacity (including possession of WMDs) to project strength in the region. saddam was much weaker than almost everyone supposed.
And if you look at German/French/Russian arguments against the war prior to the invasion, almost all take his possession of WMDs for granted. So, one could make a clear case for a preventive war (not so much a preemptive one), in that saddam could present a much graver threat in the future. This is what actually made me most nervous about invading Iraq. Preventive wars don't have such a good track record in history (e.g., Germany in WWI) and I wasn't sure we should go down that path.

So one could make a case -- on the available evidence at the time -- that saddam could threaten US interests in the future. Looking back at statements from administration figures (then and now), it seems clear that's what they had in mind. But, in selling the war to us, they chose to focus only on a few elements of this broader concern, some of which turned out to to be products of faulty intelligence. Those individual reasons cited -- nuclear capacity, WMDs, threat to US interests, liberating the Iraqis, etc -- are part and parcel of the broader rationale for invasion. You treat them as if they're each separate justifications, which I think distorts what was really going on.
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
--Margaret Thatcher

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2005, 04:08:04 PM »
those who opposed war intially, ot at least early, usually did so on one or both two grounds:  moral principle or no iraqi connection to terrorism.

most recent converts have come to believe war not winnable.  however, if war had gone well, they'd have no regrets about it.

thing about wars that presidents must remember:  there must be true commitment on part of public to wage it, or eventually there be trouble.
This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty.

bruin

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 13867
    • View Profile
    • lsn profile
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2005, 04:10:37 PM »
...unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision.

This is the view of much of the opposition.
Attending UVa
Click below for more info
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=bruin04
Come on, I know you want to click me.

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #63 on: August 09, 2005, 04:27:54 PM »
This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-Theodore Roosevelt.


Just some food for thought. Of course, those of you who believe Teddy Roosevelt was a flaming liberal can disregard.

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #64 on: August 09, 2005, 04:30:32 PM »
...unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision.

This is the view of much of the opposition.
Let's look for a clearer standard. I'll start with a proposition and we'll banter it about to hopefully arrive at an agreeement.

Begining proposition: In a Democratic society, the public is morally obligated to refrain from actively opposing a war once a decision has been reached unless a member of the public honestly believes that the war is not merely a bad idea, but truly evil.

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #65 on: August 09, 2005, 04:41:02 PM »
This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-Theodore Roosevelt.


Just some food for thought. Of course, those of you who believe Teddy Roosevelt was a flaming liberal can disregard.
I suppose that you have introduced this quote to suggest that Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with a previous comment of mine. I don't think my statement  in blue -- This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty. -- is necessarily contradictory to Roosevelt's statements or beliefs. I am not talking about criticizing the president, I am talking about undermining the war effort. Criticize away, but make your argument about a war before the decision has been made. Once the national leaders, not just the president and not just Republicans, have made a policy decision which relies on public support to insure the greatest success with the least loss of American soldier's lives, don't undermine it.

amarain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
    • View Profile
    • Atlanta Private Investigator
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #66 on: August 09, 2005, 04:45:50 PM »
This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-Theodore Roosevelt.


Just some food for thought. Of course, those of you who believe Teddy Roosevelt was a flaming liberal can disregard.
I suppose that you have introduced this quote to suggest that Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with a previous comment of mine. I don't think my statement  in blue -- This is why once a decison has been made the public should get behing its leader, unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision. The public, Julie, has a duty too. Please do your duty. -- is necessarily contradictory to Roosevelt's statements or beliefs. I am not talking about criticizing the president, I am talking about undermining the war effort. Criticize away, but make your argument about a war before the decision has been made. Once the national leaders, not just the president and not just Republicans, have made a policy decision which relies on public support to insure the greatest success with the least loss of American soldier's lives, don't undermine it.

So if you are vehemently opposed to the war because you believe it will lead to an unnecessary loss of lives, then once the goverment decides to go ahead with it anyway, you need to support it? Once something's been decided, you need to give up your opinions? I think that's an extremely dangerous position to take. You're basically saying that the people have an obligation to support the government, no matter what they truly believe is right.

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2005, 04:51:38 PM »
am'rain,

Please read the post that immediately follows your first post on this thread. I think you will find it a more reasonable discussion than what you believe I am saying. Please join in.

bruin

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 13867
    • View Profile
    • lsn profile
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #68 on: August 09, 2005, 05:02:36 PM »
...unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision.

This is the view of much of the opposition.
Let's look for a clearer standard. I'll start with a proposition and we'll banter it about to hopefully arrive at an agreeement.

Begining proposition: In a Democratic society, the public is morally obligated to refrain from actively opposing a war once a decision has been reached unless a member of the public honestly believes that the war is not merely a bad idea, but truly evil.

I strongly disagree. In a democratic society, the people do not give their right to dissent because the majority (may) have gotten their way. If i didn't have to leave right now, I would go on further
Attending UVa
Click below for more info
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?cycle=0405&user=bruin04
Come on, I know you want to click me.

DodgerLaw

  • Guest
Re: True difference btwn Left and Right about Iraq
« Reply #69 on: August 09, 2005, 05:12:08 PM »
...unless of course, the leader is behaving in a way that an individual thinks is worse than just a poor decision.

This is the view of much of the opposition.
Let's look for a clearer standard. I'll start with a proposition and we'll banter it about to hopefully arrive at an agreeement.

Begining proposition: In a Democratic society, the public is morally obligated to refrain from actively opposing a war once a decision has been reached unless a member of the public honestly believes that the war is not merely a bad idea, but truly evil.

I strongly disagree. In a democratic society, the people do not give their right to dissent because the majority (may) have gotten their way. If i didn't have to leave right now, I would go on further
bruin04,
I knew you were going to disagree. I probably don't even agree with the beginning proposition.

In very un-LSD fashion, I'm not trying to argue but rather to reach an agreement. Unless your position is that the public is never under any circumstances under any kind of a duty (or even weaker word, maybe well-advised) to support the president when they have any degree of disagreement with him, please either modify my statement or make a new beginning proposition.