If that's the way you feel, with those large leaps in logic, I have no idea what to say to you.

Support for the war makes absolutely no difference. By your reasoning, everyone who voted for the administration is responsible. Also, all those who originally voted for the war, and those too timid to take affirmative action (most democrats) are responsible. Quite obviously, public support for the war does not change the actions of the administration or the nature of the conflict. Simply deciding that you don't support the war does not remove you from "responsibility"

Yeah, true, the thread wasn't about Afghanistan........but I'm not sure what I was wrong about concerning the Iraq War Resolution. The main opposition from the Democrats came in the House (296-133 total), but the Senate vote was fairly one-sided (77-23 total, Dems were 29-21 in favor). So I think it is not exactly accurate to say that Bush and the Conservatives were solely responsible for starting the Iraq War. Bush can not just go start wars.


Sorry, but that logic is pretty much crap......plain and simple. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you. How about the people that initially voted for the Bush Administration but don't support the war? Are they free and clear of "responsibility" now because they are against it? How about people that don't support the war now but were one out of the nearly 80% of Americans that initially fully supported our actions in Iraq? Are they out of the dog house too?

As for the war being illegal.....I think that is highly debatable just from what I have read. I am not an expert on International Law , but if you consider all three bases for the use of force I'm not sure that it is illegal at all. I'm fairly sure that the UN charter guarantees the right of each members to self defense, including preemptive self defense....and I think the actions taken after Resolution 1441 are highly debatable as well pertaining to legality.

True - reduces but not removes.

If the you are aware of a government minister or body failing and then you re-elect them you are really only approving of the failure or mistakes... or at least that's what I'm getting at.

No I think responsibility carries the correct connotation here, in that you and you actions are responsible in some small part for the actions and policies of those you elect; whether it be a individual responsibility or collective one - a strictly neutral term. Where connotation comes into play is in the interpretation of the term, either implying fault or praise depending on the rest of the statement or arguement...

Exactly.

International law does provide for a "pre-emptive defense" if a clear and present danger is readily apparent and unavoidable - which is where the problems arise as to the legality of the Iraq War, since different treaties and conventions differ as to what a clear and present danger is; however most of the laws post-WWII don't support the case that Iraq was a imminent danger to the US for two reasons: inability of the Iraqi military to attack the US conventional (Land, Sea, Air), and the lack of a military build-up directed towards the US (ironically it was the US that pushed for these 'conventions' during and following the Nuremburg Trials). Things also are complicated even further by Domestic Law as well for the various nations involved either directly or indirectly - for example the case of Irish citizens physically attacking/damaging a US airforce plane refueling had a lawful excuse/reason to sabotage the plane since they were acting to prevent the plane's deployment/use in an 'illegal war'.

Beyond the "fault or praise" portion (which, in most cases, veers violently more toward the 'fault' side I would posit), the denotation of "responsibility" carries some degree of burden of active involvement - see the common usage of "taking responsibility" for example.

Besides this, you are explicitly playing "Monday morning quarterback" - this is a problem, because it does not hold every side 'responsible' in the same fashion (it tends to punish those more actively involved to a much greater extent) and it's somewhat fallacious from a logical basis.

And even beyond THAT, the original statement was short-sighted and needlessly inflammatory, essentially breaking down to "people who voted for Bush have blood on their hands." If you carry your argument to its logical conclusion, anyone who agreed with the war (which includes a majority of congress and about half of its Democrats), along with anyone who did not actively and completely work against the war effort, also has blood on their hands (after all, they 'let' this happen just as explicitly as I did if I voted for Bush, no? Enablers, all of us). It's asinine, really.

I agree with you onetimeSBX.

Yup, thanks, I AM A LIBERAL TREE HUGGING PIECE OF S***. I'm also proud of it. I won't go into my ideals, because honestly, arguing is a waste of my time, i believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to. I still think you are wrong.

ok...apparently i have offended a few people on here, and for that i am sorry you feel the way you do. i am looking at this from probably a more emotional POV than others are. i have family and friends in this war. i was blessed to have some of them return safely, and then go BACK and come home injured. and then this same goverment is not taking care of our injured troops the way it should be and that is a FACT.

IMO, if you voted to KEEP GW in the white house the 2nd time around, and you knew what he was capable of, you are part of the problem. If you are not doing or have not done anything within your reach to bring these men and women back home, you are partly (not 100%) responsible for whatever happens. i will cut slack for anyone who voted for GW the first time, because nobody knew what was going to happen. but the 2nd time around?? i dont think so.

i get mentally exhausted looking at obit after obit of these children being sent home in wooden boxes. as a mother it breaks my heart to see someone bury their child. that is pretty much my angle with things.

eta: i am not worthless. my vote counted as much as yours did in that election...

I'm sorry.


Yeah, you're right.......arguing would be a waste of your time. In all honesty, if you "agree" with everything she said then you are just as big an idiot. Not only were her thoughts completely incorrect and ill-informed....... they were completely uncalled for and nothing short of ludicrous.

Please though......tell me how I'm "wrong". I'd love to hear it. I have no problems with you not agreeing with my opinions....you are perfectly entitled to that. But if you think I'm wrong about the statistics and absolute facts that I posted........then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe do some research and enlighten yourself. It's not hard to find, very quickly, that a majority of Congress, including Democrats, voted in favor of a Declaration of War and that close to 80% of the American population agreed with them at the time.

Many of us have friends and family who are serving/have served in Iraq. Most of my views on the war are influenced by the soldiers I know.

Many (if not most) soldiers and many (if not most) military families support our mission in Iraq. Just because you think its pointless doesn't mean they do and that we should.

People disagree about the war, thats fine. However when you refer to Bush in that manner (that we "knew what he was capable of"), you lose legitimacy. He's someone who acted on the information he had at the time, fighting a war like we've never fought before. Prone to mistake, sure, but implying he's evil or something is just ridiculous.

On the one hand, while I'm thankful for these soldiers fighting for their country, I'm not really sorry they get injured or killed. Our armed services are all-volunteer. A person in the military knows or should reasonably know that by signing on that dotted line, they're putting themselves in harm's way.

As far as not taking care of our injured troops "the way it should be," I'm not sure what you mean. Military medicine is better today than it has ever been. Does it perhaps have a long way to go? Yep. I do think that for the most part, they do a decent job.

How about the Demos who voted to make Kerry the Democrat nominee? If y'all had actually put forward a candidate who was worth a crap, maybe things would be different. I voted for GW -- twice.. and if Kerry were the alternative today, even though I'm not thrilled with Bush, I'd still vote for Bush.

Whatever... you join the military, death is a possibility. It's not all summer camps and learning new job skills.

Did you vote for Kerry in the primary? Lieberman, Dean or Edwards would have probably fared far better against Bush than Kerry did.

what can i say? im a natural lover and not a fighter. i support the TROOPS, not the war. i send letters, care packages, post cards, anything to boost their morale, because lets face it, some of them arent coming home. and anything that kills thousands of young people (dui, drugs, violence in schools, etc.) needs to be addressed.

i may also be around a different group of soldiers as well, of the 5 i know who are home now, all of them felt the war was unneccesary. i guess none of us who are here comfortable in the US will know as well as they do...

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I personally find it difficult to believe that you could be supportive of the troops but against them being successful in their mission. I

Just because I've been to Europe a few times doesn't make me an expert on US-EU relations.

^^^if them being "successful" means they will make it home safe, then so be it. i will support whatever gets my family and friends home in one working piece...dont get support mixed up with AGREE WITH though...