----- Forwarded Message ----From: Craig Young
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:21:58 AM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
Marsha,
You know that I love you dearly. But I have a major challenge with your Anti-War rhetoric.
The only long-term peace between countries has never existed because of "diplomacy". When one country wins a decisive war, the others fall in place.
Because there is war: there is peace.
Do I like this situation: Hell No!!! We are still the hairless apes in a world filled with other apes like us. Sooner or later, we should develop into a people that espouses brotherhood among all nations. I'm afraid that this will not happen in our time.
Craig
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Tim Peck
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:17:00 AM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
From: Craig Young
> The only long-term peace between countries has never
> existed because of "diplomacy". When one country wins
> a decisive war, the others fall in place. Because there is
> war: there is peace.
I agree that the path to peace is often through the violent elimination of a foreign threat. I view the atomic bombing of Japan in WW2 as a necessary step toward achieving peace.
But I have serious misgivings about our current engagements in the Middle East. Here are some questions I am struggling with:
-- Did the country of Iraq declare or engage in a war against America that precipitated our military invasion?
-- Is the country of Iraq presently at war with America necessitating continued military engagement?
-- What national defense purpose is fulfilled by our continued military occupation of Iraq?
-- Is nation-building and law enforcement the proper role of the U.S. military?
-- Why has the U.S. circumvented the Constitution to prosecute a war in a specific country without a formal declaration?
-- What will a victory in a "decisive war" look like once it has been achieved in Iraq?
If you can disabuse me of the notion that our current military engagement in Iraq is folly, please do so and lift me from my ignorance.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jerry Orr
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:17:28 PM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
Tim-
I don't expect you comprehend this time any more than the last dozen, but for the sake of others who might be puzzled, let me take your points in order.
1) Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring country and fellow UN member. Under terms of the UN Charter (a treaty ratified by the Senate and therefore a part of the "supreme law of the land" of the US) the US and other countries sought to punish Iraq for its aggression. Under terms of a cease fire, signed by Iraq, the US (and UK) was given certain military tasks to perform to assure that Iraq would live up to its agreement. During the following decade, Iraq broke many of the terms of the cease fire agreement, including engaging and firing missiles at our aircraft. Firing missiles at aircraft is generally considered an act of war. In retaliation, the US (Clinton) launched missiles at Iraq. Firing missiles at a country is usually considered an act of war. After 9/11, with Saddam openly financing terrorism, and the economic sanctions on the verge of collapse, Bush decided to stop the tit-for-tat and get rid of Saddam once and for all.
The '03 invasion of Iraq was a continuation of the hostilities that began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The action also fit Bush's strategy that a country that openly supported international terrorism was to be considered a declared enemy of the US.
2) In case you haven't noticed, "the country of Iraq" is now represented by an elected government with Maliki as president. We are working WITH that government, and WITH the security forces of that government to stabilize the country and mop up the primarily outside forces known as Al Queda in Iraq.
3) "Occupation" generally implies control with a monopoly of force. Once we recognized the elected government we no longer had that status. We are assisting them in defending against our common enemy, AQI, in what Bin Laden has declared to be the central theater in our war against international terrorists. We are no more "occupying" Iraq than we are Germany, Italy, South Korea, or any other country in which we have forces stationed.
4) Military Civil Affairs as well as combat and police elements are useful in that assistance. They are also easier to deploy and manage than civilian (e.g., Foreign Service) or contractor assets.
5) As Congress has not issued a declaration of war, we can be said to be in a "War in Iraq" only in the sense that we have a War on Drugs and a War on Poverty. We are using force, including military force, in a state short of all-out war, as we have numerous times in response to treaty obligations, and to defend our citizens and interests. Those who claim this is not in accordance with the Constitution are ignorant of both the Constitution and history.
6) We have already achieved substantial "victory" in that the government of Iraq is no longer financing and supporting international terrorists, but is instead assisting us in eliminating the remnants of the international terrorist organization, our common enemy, in their country. The Iraq theater may not be "decisive" in our attempt to eliminate the terrorist threat to our country, but a stable, anti-terrorist, Iraq will be a substantial contribution to that cause, especially if it can serve as an object lesson to terror-supporting nations of the fate of their course.
Jerry
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Tim Peck
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:53:11 PM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
From: Jerry Orr
> I don't expect you comprehend this time any more than
> the last dozen, but for the sake of others who might be
> puzzled, let me take your points in order.
Your insults do not, I suspect, endear you to your readers.
> Iraq under Saddam invaded a neighboring country and
> fellow UN member. Under terms of the UN Charter (a
> treaty ratified by the Senate and therefore a part of
> the "supreme law of the land" of the US) the US and
> other countries sought to punish Iraq for its aggression.
We should not be punishing Iraq for aggression. We should not be signing U.N. treaties. We should not be enforcing U.N. resolutions. If another country poses a threat to America we should follow the Constitution, declare war, proceed to eliminate the threat with overwhelming force, and return home at the earliest opportunity.
> In case you haven't noticed, "the country of Iraq" is now
> represented by an elected government with Maliki as president.
> We are working WITH that government, and WITH the security
> forces of that government to stabilize the country and mop up
> the primarily outside forces known as Al Queda in Iraq.
We shouldn't be doing any "mopping up." We shouldn't have done anything to mop up. This is a self-sacrificial war to help a primitive culture at the expense of our own service members and tax dollars. That is immoral. Only a self-interested war of national defense is moral.
> "Occupation" generally implies control with a monopoly of force.
> Once we recognized the elected government we no longer had
> that status. We are assisting them in defending against our
> common enemy, AQI, in what Bin Laden has declared to be the
> central theater in our war against international terrorists. We
> are no more "occupying" Iraq than we are Germany, Italy, South
> Korea, or any other country in which we have forces stationed.
We shouldn't be "assisting them." We shouldn't have done anything to necessitate assisting. Their internal conflict should not have become our war.
We certainly should no longer have any presence in Germany, Italy or South Korea. Pointing to other errors does not justify new ones.
> We have already achieved substantial "victory"
If we are presently in a state of victory then we should leave a war that should never have been prosecuted.
I'm sorry you have wasted your time . . . again.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Bobby Coggins
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:16:08 AM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
Surely, you are being obstinate! No greater disrespect for the people who laid down their lives to topple Saddam is possible than to walk away before the job is complete!
Pay attention to the words I write! We. cannot. leave. until. the. Iraqi. Government. is. capable, of. defending. itself. from. enemies. foreign. and. domestic. Even the plethora of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia...who by all rights should be one of our next targets.
As to the oil in America...the very people you have allied yourself with in the anti-war movement have a vested interest in keeping that oil in the ground.
Surely you are aware of the firestorm of protest they conducted just for tiny little ANWR...imagine what they will do when we start exploit that resource under the Green River Formation?
The President should declare it a matter of National Security, and open it up for exploitation.
Tim, I don't know what planet you have moved to, and perhaps you weren't paying attention. Even the Democrat Candidates will not abandon the area..and even famously refused to do so (at least the ones with any chance at the nomination) by even the end of the first or even second terms. To remove our troops from the area would signal the world that a new dark age was upon us. It would be Jimmy Carter all over again!
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Tim Peck
To: asheville-politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 6:39:00 AM
Subject: Re: [asheville-politics] 'ITS THE WAR, STUPID'
From: Bobby Coggins
> Surely, you are being obstinate!
Oh, of course. I could not have a rational, principled position if I disagree with you.
> No greater disrespect for the people who laid down their
> lives to topple Saddam is possible than to walk away
> before the job is complete!
Wrong. The greatest disrespect being paid to those "laying down their lives" is to send them into a self-sacrificial non-defensive immoral war.
> Pay attention to the words I write!
I often pay attention to the words you write. When I do, I am often dismayed.
> As to the oil in America...the very people you have allied
> yourself with in the anti-war movement have a vested
> interest in keeping that oil in the ground.
I beg your pardon. The people who have allied themselves with me are libertarian in the classical liberal tradition of the Founders. We believe in limited government, individual rights and free markets -- something conservatives would do well to investigate.
I and my "allies" support increasing domestic production of oil and new nuclear energy production as well as free-market innovation in the alternative energy industry.
> Tim, I don't know what planet you have moved to,
> and perhaps you weren't paying attention.
More insults. Charming. This will really bolster your anemic arguments.
> Even the Democrat Candidates will not abandon the area.
I won't be voting for any pro-war Democrat candidates either.
Ron Paul: Restore The Republic
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Bobby Coggins
To: Asheville Politics
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:24:52 PM
Subject: [asheville-politics] An Apology for Tim
Tim, I mistook you for bernard...in that last dustup. He asked an almost identical set of questions on one of my blogs, and you got part of my frustration that should have been more properly aimed at him.
I apologize for that.
However, you are still wrong.
Bobby
