The Observation Deck

Bret,
I am glad I can give you a good laugh. We all need one. As for how Vietnam plays into this, the same guy who BOMBED AN INNOCENT CAMBODIA NOT EVEN IN THE WAR WAS and has personal ties to Bin's family, was left to investigate 911!! It does tie in!! Everything Bush does is cover up and he put the one guy in charge who would continue to cover up until he got caught!

As far as us letting them in, you don't feel any embarrassment that our government had NO knowledege they were coming in and were SO loose on letting people in. Yet this is the same government you want us to trust that they "believed" there were nuclear weapons in Iraq (but no terrorists of course) and to blindly believe our best course of action is to send in thousands more troops to fix this. My question is, where was all our intelligence before 911 hit? Where were the military planes as soon as the terrorists hit?

As for the terrorists, you nailed it, they claim being right in bombing us, and we claim being right in bombing them. Then what is the difference between what they did and what we did?

Doug,
This is not about voting. I still don't know who I am voting for other than Democrat, but that doesn't mean I don't support Kucinich's stand on Peace!

As I see all the wrangling between Democrats and Republicans, I imagine Queen Beatrix and the Carlyle Group (no relation to any condos in Lakewood) smiling behind the scenes I used to not be much of a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes it makes you wonder. They have two main sides (R and D, of which I am neither) busy fighting against each other while many are blind to other things that are going on. Because of Bush's bungles, we have some convinced that only Republicans get us into bad wars. Maybe it's like sports fans--most people always feel they have to be rooting for one side or the other and remain loyal.

Doug

Bret

I really don’t get too involved in these discussions, but wanted to answer some of the issues you raised.

Yes, this is a German Court – not the U.S. or U.N. but it could be significant to the U.S. in the Ehren Watada case who is a First Lieutenant in the Army and has refused his deployment. He is now arguing the legality of the war in the U.S. Courts.

As for who was there to present the U.S. view – I am not familiar with the entire case and only came across it while reading about Lt Watada but it does appear that the German government was prosecuting the case, so they would of taken the position that the war was legal.

It was never shown that Iraq violated the cease fire of 1991, and this was never given as a reason for the invasion. The U.S. agreed to abide by the weapon inspectors, then recalled them prior to the completion of their work. These actions violated the UN resolutions that the U.S. had agreed to.

I’ll let you know I am a flat out pacifist and no justification for violence upon an entire country can ever be justified to me. I do believe this administration came into office with a vendetta against Iraq and were looking for a good reason. I am not so crazy to think they allowed the Trade Center bombing to provide a reason – I just think they would of come up with something eventually.

I would like to ask you a question. This war has cost approximately $375 billion dollars to date. Considering where we are at this point, is it worth it ?

[i]"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." â€â€

It was never shown that Iraq violated the cease fire of 1991

actually, it was shown plenty of times, hence the U.N.'s lame attempt at further Resolutions. And you're wrong on the order of business, Iraq on several occasions prohibited the inspectors (U.S. and U.N.) from doing their jobs, and then because of that, the U.S. (knowing that they would start bombing in retaliation) pulled it's people out and advised the U.N. to do the same.

I’ll let you know I am a flat out pacifist

good to know. I respect your position greatly, no matter how much I disagree with it.

as for your question about cost. Money is meaningless to me in this issue. The cost in human life has been the hard part, but I'm still convinced that it is a necessary price to pay to prevent the loss of further life down the road.

It probably won't come as a shock, but I agree more with the U.N. casualty figures (~60,000) rather than with the count that is ten times higher. Even so, I keep this in the perspective that the art of warfare has gotten much more accurate, yet even one life lost is still a great price.

325 billion is a meaningless number. Even just the chance at ending totalitarian rule in one part of the world is well worth ten times that price.

BOMBED AN INNOCENT CAMBODIA NOT EVEN IN THE WAR

Your absolutely right Justine, Cambodia wasn't in the war. However the tens of thousands of North Vietnamese troops that routinely traveled through Cambodia and also Laos to flank the American positions in Vietnam WERE! I'm not justifying what was done, I'm just saying that there WAS a reason for it.

Suggesting that Cambodia wasn't in the war is like saying the U.S. wasn't in WWII until Pearl Harbor. We were just perfectly neutral. Well except for those sanctions on Japan, Germany and Italy. Oh and supplying arms to the English and French. Oh and don't forget the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' INDEPENDENT pilots flying "PEACEFUL" missions in Asia. Yup aside from all that, we were perfectly innocent!

Then what is the difference between what they did and what we did

Well, Justine, if you don't know the difference by now, then there's no way that anything I suggest is going to help you. So you just keep repeating all of the liberal propaganda, maybe if you say it often enough and loud enough, just maybe, one day, it might come true.

our government had NO knowledge they were coming in and were SO loose on letting people in

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Justine, what color is the sky in the world you live in?

Bret wrote:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again... Justine, what color is the sky in the world you live in?"

Bret.

I believe that we are more effective in our debates when we stick to the issues.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be coming across a bit strong, in my opinion.

I might just have to step into this virtual kiddie pool and start verbally splashing the water around.

As a '60's survivor, I'll tell you.

It's sad.

A few years from now, you probably won't find a living soul who will admit that they supported this war.

Just like Vietnam.

And our honored soldiers will wonder what happened, what went wrong?

Just like Vietnam.

Like Vietnam, they will have won EVERY battle they were asked to fight.

But they will be out of there, as people debate how bad we "lost".

Our army wins.

but

Politicians lose.

And so do we...when we don't care for each other.

Sorry Gary, I promise to stay on topic if those that respond do as well.

The question remains, what specific laws were broken by going to war with Iraq?

If you want to discuss the Vietnam war, global policies of the 70's and 80's, or even the moral question of violence as a deterrent, then start a new thread.

Otherwise, I'll await the answer. And my guess is that I'll be waiting for a very very very long time.

and by the way, go ahead and mark me down now as supporting the war - from the very beginning and even to this very day.

Kumbaya, MY LORD, kumbaya.

Bret,

In my opinion, you just gave a great post.

Possibly the best one I've seen in quite a while,

...and yeah, Kumbayah MY LORD suits me fine too.

I've got a little knowledge of the Middle East, coming from families, friends and former students who've been there.

We've got a real mess on our hands. This was a total hornet's nest kicked.

What troubles me is that we seem to have so little knowledge of the people. Does our government know or care about the culture over there?

We seem to view things so simplistically.

We have so much to learn.

Regarding your law question, while I won't research chapter and verse- as a Political Science honors graduate, I'll simply suggest that there are national and international laws involved here, and yes, I do understand that laws can be, and are interpreted by the country whose national interests appear to be threatened.

The War on Terror is indeed, a different type of war. When Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded however, the waters muddied up legally. In the US, a declaration of war has been the norm when invading a country, although with Nicaragua and the Philippines, I believe those were also police actions of the type not unlike what we are seeing today.

You are aware that we apparently bypassed the UN with regard to both military action and prisoner treatment in this conflict. That will no doubt come back to haunt us one day.

As you know, the question of whether laws were broken is a serious one that will not go away. I would guess that to a fairly large part of the world, that question unfortunately remains open.

These are my concerns, and I believe that they address yours, as well.