Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War Cliches

That\'s not the point. In the USA we send our politicians to Washington to vote on issues. We put a certain amount of trust in our leaders to do the right thing. They do not make their decisions by a poll. I should say, they should not decide an issue on a poll. Unfortunately some do.

I am a citizen of the USA and I am not privy to all the information our leaders have at their disposal.

Ace

We elect leaders to do the right thing. If they do stuff by the polls, things will not be all that great.

If I\'m not mistakened, Australia DID vote for PM Howard and even PM Tony Blair, both of which support this war. The fact that the people don\'t support him now is illrelevent until the next election. Same with Bush. Now, you can say "but but but but but but Bush didn\'t get the popular vote", doesn\'t matter. Its the way our election works. By the electorial system. Prevents mob rule which is one of the flaws if a true Democracy IMO (no, I\'m not against freedom, whatever. :rolleyes: Just a true Democracy. If 90% of the voters all voted to kill all black people, is that a good thing? You talk about how people have become sheeps, imagine if these sheeps voted one way instead of educating themselves about the issue.).

Leaders should NOT determine their policies by the polls. Only determine their policies by what is right and what is wrong. Obviously many leaders don\'t lead this way.

Well, atleast we can get Bush outta here in a year and whatever .... get the democrats in office, have some sexual relations, and no war ! whoo!

Hopefully he will be gone after this term. I dont really see him being re-elected. I just hope the next dumb ass bush( Jeb) doesnt decide to run.

As you know, IMO, Bush is a good President (not great. Even I have some misgivings with Bush). Certainly better with Clintoon and his sex problems (and no, it was NOT all about sex. If it was, I wouldn\'t have a problem with it. The problem I had with Clintoon is, he TRIED to cover it up [you\'re the President Of the United States, isn\'t there more IMPORTANT issues to be involved rather then covering up his personal problems?], AS WELL as lying to Americans ["I did not have sex with that fat hog...ehhh...I mean that woman, Ms. Lewinsky] and LYING under oath [he told a Grand Jury that he didn\'t have sex...blah blah blah. Lying under oath, doesn\'t matter what the reason, IS breaking the law. He BROKE THE LAW]).

Now, after that diatride...

Bush is certainly better then all the Dems vying for the nomination. With the exception of Howard Dean and that good for laughs Al Sharpton (my candidate for choice ), all the other candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Edwards, Graham, Gephardt) are checking the wind to see where the polls are pointing. Hence, the reason why they try to have it both ways (they gave Bush the resolution to go to war, yet they say that they oppose the war?). Kucinich is an interesting candidate, until he announced he was running for the nomination, he was pro-life. Now, he says he is pro-abortion. None of those candidates have any moral conviction even to their ideology. Howard Dean on the other hand, has been running to the left, being the most liberal and anti-war candidate of them all. But at the same time, he isn\'t a senator or congressional leader like the others. Given that he is currently last in the polls...Hmmmmmmmm.

Then there is Hillery Clinton. Not officially running, but if the Democratic Party drafts her, somehow, I have a feeling she would accept. But again, another Dem with no conviction. Says she is for war in one voice, but against Bush\'s plan on the other. Another Dem who follows the polls instead of the her conviction...if she has any. :rolleyes:

Oh, and back to Afghanistan, turns out, THERE IS NO PIPELINE. I now look like a moron thinking there was one being built. At the moment (yes, things can change, but at the moment) there are no plans to build it. Unocal had a plan to build the pipeline during the Taliban days, but all plans to build it were dropped in 2000. Can\'t even use the pipeline arguement since...its at the mement, just a "pipedream".

Originally posted by Simchoy
We elect leaders to do the right thing. If they do stuff by the polls, things will not be all that great.

If I\'m not mistakened, Australia DID vote for PM Howard and even PM Tony Blair, both of which support this war. The fact that the people don\'t support him now is illrelevent until the next election. Same with Bush. Now, you can say "but but but but but but Bush didn\'t get the popular vote", doesn\'t matter. Its the way our election works. By the electorial system. Prevents mob rule which is one of the flaws if a true Democracy IMO (no, I\'m not against freedom, whatever. :rolleyes: Just a true Democracy. If 90% of the voters all voted to kill all black people, is that a good thing? You talk about how people have become sheeps, imagine if these sheeps voted one way instead of educating themselves about the issue.).

Leaders should NOT determine their policies by the polls. Only determine their policies by what is right and what is wrong. Obviously many leaders don\'t lead this way.

Really Simchoy, I love you and all, but you can\'t say anything about our political systems because you don\'t know shite about it. Right now the head of state of Britain and Australia is The Queen (this\'ll change when Australia becomes a republic). We did not elect our Prime Ministers. They are the Prime Minsters because they are the leaders of the party that won the most seats in parliament.

The thing you must understand is that this isn\'t a local issue anymore. This isn\'t some conflict about the industrial relations laws, a fight for funding or a tax issue. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. It isn\'t some complex debate about economic policy that regular people don\'t really know much about. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Do you get it yet? WE ARE GOING TO WAR.

Like I said, we elected our governments to do the micromanagement. We didn\'t elect them to tell us to go to war just because it pleases them. If they want one, they\'ll have to convince the people before they can proceed.

Originally posted by Simchoy


Oh, and back to Afghanistan, turns out, THERE IS NO PIPELINE. I now look like a moron thinking there was one being built. At the moment (yes, things can change, but at the moment) there are no plans to build it. Unocal had a plan to build the pipeline during the Taliban days, but all plans to build it were dropped in 2000. Can\'t even use the pipeline arguement since...its at the mement, just a "pipedream".

I havent seen otherwise and last I knew it was Halliburton and not unocal that is building the pipeline. I may be ignorant to the fact that Halliburton and Unocal may be affiliated, Im not sure on that. Looking for info at the moment though.

*edit* I have found the connection between Unocal and Halliburton.

There will always be a faction that will never want to go to war no matter what the evidence is. Especially if the media is controlled by left leaning organization (BBC, The Gaurdian, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC [I know they are trying to outfox Fox with getting more "conservative" now, but before then, it is still left leaning]) tells it their way. And believe it or not, Blair, Bush, and Howard HAVE tried to make the case (IMO, have made the case) but the mass population. One of the reasons why Bush went to the UN in the first place was to get the approval of Europe as well as the world. Obviously, it backfired since he is now hated more then before (and before he wasn\'t that liked either).

We elect leaders to lead. We elect a party to lead the nation in one direction or another. One great thing about a Democracy (Parlimentary or Presidential) is that the nation can change course through the will of the people if the people feel that the nation is heading in the wrong direction or the policy is wrong (like if the people don\'t want war in Iraq...vote them out in the next election cycle).

However, if they are elected, unless they are poll watchers like Clinton was, they will lead the nation with or without the people consent. Leadership IMO, should come before the masses.

Not to mention, people are pretty finicky. Bush Sr. did a TERRIBLE job promoting Persian Gulf War 1. He had very low approval ratings. When the actually war happened, it went up to 70%.

And speaking of electing officials...
Avataar, in a way, they did elect the PM...by electing his party. Same can be said with Israel who has a similar system. The winner was Sharon not because they elected him personally (since they can\'t. Their system is JUST like England\'s and Austraila\'s parimentary government), but elected his party Likud. Now, we are simply talking symantics here.

Now, yes, techincally, the head of state for both Australia and England (and Canada I believe) is the Queen, but the Queen really has no power now. I know that. England is a Constitutional Monarchy. Maybe one day they will no longer have a Monarchy and then they could be a true Democracy (or better yet, a Republic). But until then, they still have a Queen or a King.

Right, all that direction stuff is all well and good Simchoy. The Liberals, Howard\'s party did a whole lot of reform that many people were against. The biggest thing is they completely overhauled the taxation system and implemented a GST. A lot of people were against it before, but now everything is fine and dandy. I can appreciate that sometimes leaders must lead and go to places where poeple dont like to go.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Raegan (sp?) both stepped into cold water by adopting a different (at the time) philosophy for economy: "Less economic regulation is good. The government shouldn\'t spend too much money. The government shouldn\'t control the utility companies." People didn\'t like it at first, but because ot that stance, peopole have it better now.

I can appreciate all that, but let me tell you again: this issue isn\'t about that stuff anymore. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. And again I say WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Did you hear that? WE ARE GOING TO WAR. If you\'re still sticking to that lead not follow thing, then you I tell you again: WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Do you get it now? WE ARE GOING TO WAR.

Whats your point that we are going to war? Do you believe that peace only means the absense of war? Sometimes, war IS the only option left in order to protect us, and the free world (even if others are unwilling to do that).

We went through the UN in the hopes that "maybe" that wouldn\'t be the case. Unforetunetly, the UN is showing us how much illrelevent it is when it isn\'t taking the UN situation very seriously.

The problem with many pacifist is, the only way their thinking can work, is if EVERYONE is naturally good and trustworthy. Unfortuenetly, this isn\'t how the world works. Chamberline found that out when he tried to appease Hitler and procliamed that "There will be Peace in Our Time".

Yes Simchoy, but at that time they attacked first. This time, we\'re saying we should attack them before they attack us. Now what we\'re all scared about is there might be a time when the letters u and s will only mean The United States of America...... and our country is "them".

Hitler did attack first ONLY because Britian and France ALLOWED them to. Remember, to "prevent" war, Chamberlain gave Hitler parts of Cezhoslovakia when Hitler threatened war. This despite the fact that Czechslovakia was an ally of Britian (not to mention, the Czech did have one of the most powerful army besides Germany and...even France. So Britain gave up a somewhat powerful ally to appease Hitler). Heck, when Hitler entered the Rhineland, France still didn\'t do anything (despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the Versaille Treaty). Since Chamberlain didn\'t stop Hitler before he became a big threat later on, millions of Europeans (thousands of Americans and other nations too) are dead because of it.

Remember, Churchill was one of the few critics of Chamberlian and in fact, wanted to fight Hitler before it became a destructive and deadly war. Like today, many in the public opposed that view and sided with Chamberlain. If Churchill got his way, its possible that Hitler\'s Germany would\'ve NEVER reached the height as it did in WW2.

BTW, in a way, this could be an extention of the original Persian Gulf War. It was Saddam who was supposed to give up all his weapons as part of the treaty signed after the first Gulf War. Since he has violated that (even Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam was found to be in violiation of that treaty [he didn\'t follow through of coarse, but he did go in for the same reason Bush is now. Oh, and he didn\'t go through the UN either]).

Pre-emptive strike has become a dirty word by liberals and the media. The thing is, sometimes, it is neccessary in order to take out a threat before it becomes are catostrophic desaster. In the age of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons, in the wake of 9-11, Al Queda, Abu Sayaad, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, heck, even North Korea (if Clinton didn\'t give food and aid, as well as a reactor, we might not have to deal with them at this point as we are today) pre-emptive strike could be the only way to protect millions of people (Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, whatever).

Yes yes, we agree with all that. We just want the action to happen through the UN. Not a single country doing it by herself.

Which is why the US went to the UN in the first place. Which, unless the UN wants to become the League of Nations, must act now if they have any serious power left.

But like the original thread noted, we are NOT going at it alone with or without the "almighty" UN. Strictly talking about political support of coarse. After all, going at it "alone", doesn\'t that mean...well, alone? Those nations (public support excluded) behind us with or without the UN isn\'t exactly alone.

Political support is public support. I can\'t speak for other countries, but John Howard has already been censured by The Australian Senate. If he does anything stupid, The Australian Parliament will too and that means bye bye Johnny.