Fox gives less attention to Iraq war study shows

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Fine then I'll say it too... because of your political support for an illegal war, and the continued political support for the administration that completely dropped the ball in the war planning, peace, and reconstruction, you share in some small part the responsibility for these soldier's deaths - it's the nature of living in a democracy/republic that the people give the government the poltical power, and if that government does good or bad the public shares in the prasie or blame.

I think you'll agree that each 'step' away from the actual decision in the democratic process reduces 'responsibility' by a large degree, correct?

Because you missed a few steps (notably, it seems much more correct that the administration "dropping the ball" leads to the soldiers being put into a particular situation, then that situation may or may not result in injury).

Representative democracy, furthermore, should really assuage any of these concerns. "Responsibility" carries a connotation that is likely incorrect here, whereas its denotation might carry some small weight in your argument as posed.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Sorry macallan while the rest of your post has some valid points, you're dead wrong here given the context of the post. Did the Conservatives/Republicans (Bush) start the 'War on Terror'. No. Did they start the War in Iraq (which the thread is about). Yes. The former was in response to an attack (9/11) while the later was pre-emptive.

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.

Fine then I'll say it too... because of your political support for an illegal war, and the continued political support for the administration that completely dropped the ball in the war planning, peace, and reconstruction, you share in some small part the responsibility for these soldier's deaths - it's the nature of living in a democracy/republic that the people give the government the poltical power, and if that government does good or bad the public shares in the prasie or blame.

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.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

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'.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you'll agree that each 'step' away from the actual decision in the democratic process reduces 'responsibility' by a large degree, correct?

True - reduces but not removes.

Because you missed a few steps (notably, it seems much more correct that the administration "dropping the ball" leads to the soldiers being put into a particular situation, then that situation may or may not result in injury).

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.

Representative democracy, furthermore, should really assuage any of these concerns. "Responsibility" carries a connotation that is likely incorrect here, whereas its denotation might carry some small weight in your argument as posed.

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...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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 argument...

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Fine then I'll say it too... because of your political support for an illegal war, and the continued political support for the administration that completely dropped the ball in the war planning, peace, and reconstruction, you share in some small part the responsibility for these soldier's deaths - it's the nature of living in a democracy/republic that the people give the government the poltical power, and if that government does good or bad the public shares in the prasie or blame.

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

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Sorry macallan while the rest of your post has some valid points, you're dead wrong here given the context of the post. Did the Conservatives/Republicans (Bush) start the 'War on Terror'. No. Did they start the War in Iraq (which the thread is about). Yes. The former was in response to an attack (9/11) while the later was pre-emptive.



Fine then I'll say it too... because of your political support for an illegal war, and the continued political support for the administration that completely dropped the ball in the war planning, peace, and reconstruction, you share in some small part the responsibility for these soldier's deaths - it's the nature of living in a democracy/republic that the people give the government the poltical power, and if that government does good or bad the public shares in the prasie or blame.

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"

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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"

Exactly.