• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Saddam's Missile Attacks On Israeli Civilians Were Acts Of Self-Defense

This statement in the title of this thread is:

  • An honest and accurate assessment

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal here that really seemed to capture why the left is so wrong, so often on national security, and it all comes down to correct statement of the facts and correct terminology. If you state the facts correctly, there usually is little to debate.

At the core of the left's anti-war thesis is a series of gross disortions about who the enemies really are, what they are after, and what they should be called.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal here that really seemed to capture why the left is so wrong, so often on national security, and it all comes down to correct statement of the facts and correct terminology. If you state the facts correctly, there usually is little to debate.

At the core of the left's anti-war thesis is a series of gross disortions about who the enemies really are, what they are after, and what they should be called.
aquapub edited his post an angstrom before i replied.

However... who are really the enemies...? apparently not Bin Laden.

What are they after? Nothing, apparently.

What should they be called? Insurgents, protecting their country from unjust occupation.

Of course extreme right wingers like aquapub will play me off as a leftist. Fact be known no true conservative would attack another country based upon nothing and spout lies like this.... all the while ignoring the actual culprit who is incahoots with our Commander in Chief.

Where is Bin Laden btw? Why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia?
 
Last edited:

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just curious - In 1991, what role did Israel play in the coalition that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait?

None?

So, it can be argued that his missile attacks in Israeli civilains suring the 1991 Gulf War were "self defense", because...?
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Goobieman said:
Just curious - In 1991, what role did Israel play in the coalition that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait?

None?

So, it can be argued that his missile attacks in Israeli civilains suring the 1991 Gulf War were "self defense", because...?
What concern is this of American taxpayers and soldiers/marines?

Where does our constitution state that we exist to police the world?
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Conflict said:
What concern is this of American taxpayers and soldiers/marines?
Where does our constitution state that we exist to police the world?
OK, I give up-
How are these questions relevant to my post?
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal here that really seemed to capture why the left is so wrong, so often on national security, and it all comes down to correct statement of the facts and correct terminology. If you state the facts correctly, there usually is little to debate.

At the core of the left's anti-war thesis is a series of gross disortions about who the enemies really are, what they are after, and what they should be called.


The attacks on Israel were attempts by Saddam to get Israel to enter the Gulf War. He thought it would dissolve the Coalition.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Conflict said:
What concern is this of American taxpayers and soldiers/marines?

Where does our constitution state that we exist to police the world?
When we see a danger that has the potential to become a hazard to us and our allies, we act.
This was not done prior to WW I nor WW II.
Slowly we learn from our mistakes.
The League of Nations and United Nations are corrupt and of limited value.
They should be the ones to act when a danger is perceived..

Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago.
Like the Bible, it should NOT be adhered to literally.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
earthworm said:
Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago.
Like the Bible, it should NOT be adhered to literally.
Absolutely false.

Every word of the Constitution was written (in English) with a specific, verifiable intent, and it was written in such a way to cover every situation imagineable.

If you don't like what the Constitution lets you/prevebts you from doing, see Article V. Change the words, dont ignore them.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Goobieman said:
Absolutely false.

Every word of the Constitution was written (in English) with a specific, verifiable intent, and it was written in such a way to cover every situation imaginable.

If you don't like what the Constitution lets you/prevebts you from doing, see Article V. Change the words, don't ignore them.
You must be smoking far too much pot:mrgreen: is you think the Constitution (as originally written) is a perfect or infallible instrument.
Over the long term, such is not possible and as you should know , many amendments have been written and many more are certain to follow in the future..
Far from arguing that the Constitution is "bad", it is NOT; the fact that it can be changed and improved over the years is good.
That the Constitution was written in English is, of course, fitting and proper; we are wrong in changing this - making Spanish a "second" language.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
earthworm said:
You must be smoking far too much pot:mrgreen: is you think the Constitution (as originally written) is a perfect or infallible instrument.
Did I say that? I dont remember saying that. Wait -- I'll look again.

-Every word of the Constitution was written (in English) with a specific, verifiable intent
-it was written in such a way to cover every situation imaginable.
-If you don't like what the Constitution lets you/prevebts you from doing, see Article V.
-Change the words, don't ignore them.

I dont see "perfect" or "infalibe" or any implication of same.

Over the long term, such is not possible and as you should know , many amendments have been written and many more are certain to follow in the future..
So... whats the problem?

Far from arguing that the Constitution is "bad", it is NOT; the fact that it can be changed and improved over the years is good.
But that's not hat you said, You said that "Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Like the Bible, it should NOT be adhered to literally."

If yu arent going to take is as written, why write it?
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
I had a debate recently with an anti-war liberal


correct terminology.


I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.

As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents. If you are obfuscating these distinctions, you may be as guilty of distortion as those you accuse of such, since there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla war. Both extremes tend towards distortion, though, as idealogues of the far right often fail to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla war, while those of the extreme left fail to distinguish between police action and terrorism (the hackneyed charge of "state terrorism"). Both are distorting the definition to advance their political agenda.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Gardener said:
I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.

As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents. If you are obfuscating these distinctions, you may be as guilty of distortion as those you accuse of such, since there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla war. Both extremes tend towards distortion, though, as idealogues of the far right often fail to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla war, while those of the extreme left fail to distinguish between police action and terrorism (the hackneyed charge of "state terrorism"). Both are distorting the definition to advance their political agenda.
If I could have said it better myself; I would have.

I concur.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gardener said:
I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.

As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents. If you are obfuscating these distinctions, you may be as guilty of distortion as those you accuse of such, since there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla war. Both extremes tend towards distortion, though, as idealogues of the far right often fail to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla war, while those of the extreme left fail to distinguish between police action and terrorism (the hackneyed charge of "state terrorism"). Both are distorting the definition to advance their political agenda.

I do largely agree with these points.

The war in Iraq should be gaged not by how many people die or who dies, but why and how they are dying. Targeting civilians for the sake of racking up a body count is terrorism. That is what the enemy we are trying to kill does. Our soldiers are taught to disobey illegal orders (although that training doesn't always take), to obey the Geneva convention where possible, and we are the only country I've ever seen that immediately followed our bombing of military targets (in Afghanistan) with food drops to compensate for the infrastructure we had just destroyed.

Our mission is humane and for the benefit of global security. It is a just war, and we are not terrorists for fighting it. One man's terrorist is not another man's freedom fighter. They can be logically distinguished with concrete characteristics and facts.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gardener said:
Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
Yes, I know what liberals allegedly stand for. I also know what people who always call themselves liberals actually do in office.

Technically, semantically, there should be a distinctionmade between liberal and leftist, but that distinction is so rare in actual practice that it is hardly worth mentioning.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gardener said:
I would venture to say that you may wish to add yourself to those for whom you extend these concerns as to terminology. People who hold positions such as this (if indeed, you are accurately stating it) may be antiwar and may be from the left, but they are not liberal. Liberality is based upon liberal political principles, whereas these attitudes arise from the dogmatic, authoritarian left as typified by Chomsky, Cole, Counterpunch, ANSWER et al who are leftists, but not liberals.
MOST American liberals are leftists.
Those that are not are usually some form of libertarian.

As to whether people should be called insurgents or terrorists, specifically, that would depend upon their targets. If they select civilian targets, their actions are terrorist in nature, while if they select military targets, they could be considered insurgents.
Being an "insurgent" doesn't, in and of itself, grant you any legitimacy.
IF you are an 'insurgent' acting under the 'right to resistance', then, perhaps your actions are justifiable.

BUT

A "right of resistance," under that principle, exists only under certain narrow conditions. The animals who burn bodies and leave them on bridges, and perform brutal acts of horrific terror on camera, fulfill exactly none of them, neither in condition, behavior, or standing to do so.

For a right of resistance to apply, there have to be certain conditions. First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.

Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that most of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.

Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Goobieman said:
MOST American liberals are leftists.
Those that are not are usually some form of libertarian.
Yes. This distinction applies in a poli. sci. class and maybe in a philosophy class, but in the real world, there is no substantive difference.
 
Top Bottom