Why bother debating this?

[Ronn_Bman]

For those who live in Democratic nations where the government seems to be acting against it's people's will regarding Iraq, I will say that you vote people into office to do a job, and based on the information they have, they are doing that job. If they are wrong or even if they're right and it ticked you off, you can vote them out. Leaders are put in office to lead, not to follow popularity polls.

If there was a terrorist attack on any of the nations that staged huge protests and that attack could be immediately traced back to Iraq, then those who were protesting would be whining about their government's inability to protect them.

[ 02-24-2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Timber Loftis]

Maybe the government has not had intentions of averting war. The US military is the one trying to keep the "containment" lid on the pressure-cooker that Iraq is becoming. It simply pushed and pushed the bounds of the envelope established against it after the Gulf War.

Iraq was naughty - the world took its toys away. It agreed to let the world do that to keep its country intact. If it wasn't continually trying to challenge the world - and I mean shots fired every week for 12 years folks - and if it just did what it agreed to do as penance, I don't think the US would have gone after it beginning a few years ago. Put, it's been a pain in the ass for a dozen years, causing the US military a lot of headaches in nannying it.

Come on, how come no one cared when they kicked inspectors out years ago? Why did no one ask Iraq to answer? Why did companies in our countries keep selling it forbidden chemicals and arms? Does no one care about its bad behavior?

There's so much time spent demonizing those who want to make war and be done with the problem that it seems we've forgotten that a maniacal dictator has VX gas, missiles to strap it to, and the will to use it.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I don't know, to me this sounds like a bunch of "it's not being done the way I want, so it's wrong, and the whole system is worthless because if it's not being done my way nothing is really being done." Republican War? That is so.. much... BS! You think Democracy is a lie? I imagine that in Iraq, or any other dictatorial nation, you could protest, bitch, and complain, but I wonder how long you'd get to do it? Maybe someone in Iraq could sponsor a "turn over the weapons" protest and burn pictures of Saddam to get the government's attention?

The people vote for the government, so it makes sense that the government does what's best for the people, right? Or what people want, if it's possible. If the majority of the people (take 80%!) don't want to support a war, then the government shouldn't. The government should work for the people, and not the other way around. Otherwise it's dictatorship, like you said.
I don't know what that part about Iraq was about though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If there was a terrorist attack on any of the nations that staged huge protests and that attack could be immediately traced back to Iraq, then those who were protesting would be whinning about their government's inability to protecting them.

Hear, hear. That includes the US protestors, too. I think there is an outer limit of proactiveness regarding military action that is too much. But, if our nation's policies are "you must be struck before you can strike back," we are demanding the occurrence of a tragedy.

[Timber Loftis]

Spelca:

I disagree that the government should just take gallup polls to dictate how it operates. You elect officials to represent your best interests.

Sometimes the best interests for you and society are not popular choices in the short run. Sometimes, leaders must do what is unpopular now to protect the future. And many times, we are not given the knowledge to help them make those decisions, because national security dictates we should not know.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Spelca: I disagree that the government should just take gallup polls to dictate how it operates. You elect officials to represent your best interests. Sometimes the best interests for you and society are not popular choices in the short run. Sometimes, leaders must do what is unpopular now to protect the future. And many times, we are not given the knowledge to help them make those decisions, because national security dictates we should not know.

What if the leaders are doing something just to suck up to somebody powerful so they could get nice jobs and lots of money and glory? That's how it looks like from where I look at it. They want to suck up so that we'll have a nice time when we get to NATO and all the big guys will like us. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Spelca: The people vote for the government, so it makes sense that the government does what's best for the people, right? Or what people want, if it's possible. If the majority of the people (take 80%!) don't want to support a war, then the government shouldn't. The government should work for the people, and not the other way around. Otherwise it's dictatorship, like you said. I don't know what that part about Iraq was about though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

What's "best" for the people and what they "want" isn't always the same thing, so while the "government may actually be working for the people", it may be unpopular. Would you prefer a government that does whatever public opinion polls say in every instance?

The part about Iraq was saying that if your nation sustained a terrorist attack today that could be traced directly to materials supplied by Saddam, the people who were protesting for peace 10 days ago would begin to wonder why their government didn't protect them.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Spelca: What if the leaders are doing something just to suck up to somebody powerful so they could get nice jobs and lots of money and glory? That's how it looks like from where I look at it. They want to suck up so that we'll have a nice time when we get to NATO and all the big guys will like us. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What you say regarding your leaders may be true, but sometimes "looks can be deceiving".

Your nation isn't exactly looking for a "nice time" in NATO where everyone will like you just because you've sided with the US on this issue. In the 21st century siding with the US doesn't bring the love and acceptance of the world. Haven't the French already begun making threats regarding the admittance of the nations who signed the pro-war document? It seems some nations want to bully others into their point of view.

You just can't please everyone.

[ 02-24-2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Moiraine]

Ronn, what a 'democracy' supposedly - and etymologically - is is "the power to the citizens". We supposedly elect people to do what we gave them mandate to do. I am not saying this is a good or a bad political system - I am just saying that it is our system.

So if our leaders don't do what we want them to do - then we are not in a true democracy anymore. Maybe they are right - but we have elected presidents, not war leaders, and it is not what the system is about. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And the part about yelling for protection - that is blackmail, Ronn. [img]smile.gif[/img] It is an old saw that has been used many many times by many many leaders in the past centuries - isn't civilization ever progressing ?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Ronn, what a 'democracy' supposedly - and etymologically - is is "the power to the citizens". We supposedly elect people to do what we gave them mandate to do. I am not saying this is a good or a bad political system - I am just saying that it is our system. So if our leaders don't do what we want them to do - then we are not in a true democracy anymore. Maybe they are right - but we have elected presidents, not war leaders, and it is not what the system is about. [img]smile.gif[/img] And the part about yelling for protection - that is blackmail, Ronn. [img]smile.gif[/img] It is an old saw that has been used many many times by many many leaders in the past centuries - isn't civilization ever progressing ?

Yes, but because there wasn't any mandate about Iraq during the elections in France should France even be involved at all in this process? Should France have involved itself on an issue of great importance that no one was allowed to vote on? Many seem to accept the popularity polls, but I haven't heard about anyone voting and that is the only true measurement isn't it?

Of course France should be involved despite the fact that the issue wasn't part of the election process, and your government has decided to act. Your government has made it's decision, and is doing what it thinks is best despite the fact that some who voted for them may actually oppose it's actions. Your government might even hold it's current position if 51% favored a war with Iraq. Leaders are suppose to act in the best interests of those they represent. "Power to the citizens" doesn't mean everyone gets their way.

Blackmail? I'm not trying to use an old saw to make anyone switch sides in this argument, but I think it's an example that shows the difficulty leaders face. They are responsible for us, and if they give us exactly what we want, and we end up being hurt by our own desires somehow we want to hold them responsible. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-24-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]