Posted on 12/16/2002 1:09:41 AM PST by kattracks
Actor Sean Penn insisted he's "a patriot and an American" after touring Saddam City yesterday at the end of his three-day tour of Iraq.Asked if his trip might expose him to charges that he's a traitor to his country, Penn said, "I'm here because I'm a patriot and an American who has benefited enormously from being an American."
Penn insisted he went on his own fact-finding mission to clear his conscience. "If there's going to be blood on my hands, I'm determined that it's not going to be invisible," he said, adding, "That blood is not just Iraqi blood, it's the blood of American soldiers."
After meeting with Iraqi officials and having an hour-long sit-down with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, Penn toured Saddam City, a populous slum on the outskirts of the capital, named for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
While careful not to criticize President Bush directly, Penn called on the White House to release the proof it says it has about Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction.
"I cannot conceive of any reason why the U.S. and the world haven't shared the evidence about weapons of mass destruction," Penn said at a news conference in the Iraqi capital. "I certainly hope there is a very good reason."
The Academy Award nominee paid for a $56,000 advertisement in The Washington Post in October accusing Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.
Jane H. Furse
You've got it assbackwards. It's WAR that has to have a justification. Peace is the desired state given a choice between the two. Having said that,Iraq had NOTHING to do with what happened on 9-11,so how the hell can we justify using the events of 9-11 to justify invading the country and killing the people there? Even MORE important,how the hell can we justify causing our own young people to lose THEIR lives or be damaged for the rest of their lives fighting a war that is both unneccessary AND unprovoked?
I've seen you attack others and their ideas but,
You have seen me respong to attacks on me.
like those who scream loudest in the Democratic Party, I haven't seen you offer anything constructive of your own.
You don't consider tryint to prevent a unprovoked war with another sovereign nation to be constructive>
Is that because you have nothing to suggest?
I have plenty to suggest,and have worn myself out suggesting what I see to be the more correct course of action. This includes going into Saudi Arabia and taking out selected members of the Royal family who have Al Queda ties,and then putting them on notice that not only will we place a embargo on them exporting oil,but we will tell Iraq and Syria we will step aside if they want to go in and take over. We also seize all Saudi assets in the west for damages. We tell the people of Saudi Arabia that we will end the embargo and provide dimplomatic and military aid once they remove the fundie Muslim priests and the Saud Royal family from power and install a new government themselves. No more Mr Nice guyh,and no more free rides.
Nobody on FR seems to care. Most seem to want another video war so they can watch in on tv and convince themselves that they are tough while they wave their big foam "We're number 1!" fingers.
To lump Israel in with Iraq, Pakistian and North Korea is dishonest at best.
No,it's not. Israel IS a sovereign nation,they DO have nukes,and nobody can honestly say they will never attack us in the future. The attack on the Liberty in 1967(over 30 years ago pete) was an accident.
Hey! I thought you implied it never happened,and now you are claiming it was a accident! Do you also believe Bubba-1 "Did not have sex with that woman,Monica Lewinsky"?
No. Why would other reasons be needed?
The is the only circumstance where I would condone the burning of the flag.
I'm a useful idiot? To call you a cretin would be bragging on you. You are not even smart enough to read your own words. You state yourself that Iraq's conduct has been a ongoing thing for over 10 years,but suddenly this is justification for thousands of people to die (not just Iraqui's,either,but US military members)or be maimed,and billions of dollars wasted?
Little reading comprehension problem?
I see. Only "macho men" like you understand complex issues like this,right?
BTW,you forgot about Iraq being responsible for herpes,AIDS,and Madonna's last movie.
I agree.
The best way to do that right now is to remove their supporting nations.
Again,I agree. We just disagree on what nation should be the number 1 target.
The best way to do that is to make them all free societies.
That should be the ultimate goal,but right now we need to focus on stopping the attacks on us. First things first. The best way to do this is shut them down financially. We can accomplish this by seizing and freezing all Saudi assets and property outside Saudi Arabia. This not only takes out the prime financers of world wide Muslim terrorism,it also sends a message to those funding terrorist groups in countries like Egypt that the financiers aren't exempt,and they WILL forfeit their fortunes if they continue to support terrorists.
It will not be done in a year or in a decade, but it can be done if we have a good plan.
Again,I agree. The fact is that we are wasting out time and resources fighting terrorism now if we don't develope long-term plans for ending it in the future. We can't continue to just react. We have to take the initiative and let the big boys know THEY will be paying a price,too.
sneaky: "I see. Only "macho men" like you understand complex issues like this,right?"
You changed the subject and evaded the question.
So be it. The emasculators of America aren't "complex" mentalities.
They fall into two catagories. They're either cynical opportunists or they're emotionally immature, relativistic, shallow, mentalities who aren't anywhere near stable enough to deal ethically or competently with any complex issue.
These are the 2 catagories of mentalities that make up the base of the DemocRAT party.
Terrorism in the U.S.? of course there is none. Its all the CIA's doing. The US has no foreign enemies, the USSR was never a threat. 40000 nuclear devices were never pointed at the US and they probably wouldn't have worked anyway.
Of course it is all about oil. Of course Bush stole the election from Gore, it is only coincidence that Gore's campaign manager was the son of the most corrupt vote stealer in American history...
Well, get ready for reality to seep into your life starting in about 6 weeks... even jimmuh won't be able to maintain your illusion.
Ummm. nobody said they didn't. I would love to see some of my posts where I said it never happened. I believe this is the first time I have discussed the topic with you.
With that said you have ZERO credibility when you lump Israel with countries that wish to do us harm. You may justify that in your own mind by obsessing on a 30 year old accident but I'm not buying.
Israel has been a friend to us and they will continue to be so in the future.
Israel IS a sovereign nation,they DO have nukes,and nobody can honestly say they will never attack us in the future.
Riiiight Pete and nobody can honestly say that I had blueberry pancakes for breakfest either, so what?
So just to be clear, because Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 they will use nukes on us?
Tinfoil on to tight my friend.
I would add a third called INTERNATIONAL LAW, but for the purposes of our discussion, let's limit ourselves to the two upon which we agree.
You state that the impending war is unnecessary and not just, and add that it is politically motivated for domestic partisan consumption. I state that the possibility of war is justified and necessary. Basically, you preclude war as a viable option to enforce international law, while I believe that an appropriate application of force necessary to achieve the political will of the United Nations must be made available in order for a viable international legal structure to exist. From the framework of a JUST WAR we should accept these as qualified premises for any application of force.
Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil such as aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;
Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved; Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Now, to the question at hand on WHY IS WAR JUSTIFIED?
The legitimacy of the world's international organization, sometimes referred to as the United Nations (UN), has been challenged by a ruthless dictator who has used, is actively seeking, and actively hiding WMD. If the UN fails at the present challenge, then all of the attempts to organize the order of men under a global sphere of freedom (legal consititutional government by representative authority) will fail. Dictators will be emboldened to "do as they please", and WAR will increase as the world is enslaved under a scourge of chaos. At that point, we (The US) may find ourselves attacked (literally) and fighting a war that we truly did not envision.
Iraq's dictator has flagrantly violated international law for nearly a decade, 16 resolutions at last count. Saddam Hussein has now violated international law again by submitting an inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, and deceptive declaration of his current status of his WMD program.
How do I know this?
The UN Inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq in 1998 because the inspectors found hard evidence that Iraq was holding, hiding, and developing Chemical agents (strictly forbidden by prior UN resolutions). The declaration just provided by Iraq does not address the prior evidence obtained, nor does it account for their current status (destruction). The UN has thus far not asked to speak with the scientists involved, but will. If Iraq refuses the UN to allow to speak with these scientsts - would that be sufficiently clear to you that Iraq has no intention of abiding by the will of the International Community of Nations?
For the reasons stated above, I believe that War is Justified and non-political in this circumstance.
Now, to the question of why WAR IS NECESSARY.
War is the use of unconventional means to achieve political change. If the Iraqi dictator refuses to abide by the international convenants to which his nation is a signatory and member (it had to sign a treaty to join the UN), then war may be necessary. War may be also necessary because of recent intelligence suggesting that there is substantial logistical support for assymetrical enemy foces (terrorists) who are targeting Americans and American businesses. This intelligence has indicated that Iraq may have supplied VX gas (which it claims to not possess) to terrorist mules who are now making their way to Europe.
Given past historical tendancies of this regime, it is now necessary to contemplate war as an option given that inaction may result in a far greater tragedy on a massive scale.
As to the question, "why don't you have the same opinion of Israel?", or insert straw man here _______? I do not equate the level of danger. I evaluate the threat level of a nation as derived from the nature of their regime, the intent of the regime, and past historical trends of the regime.
I would suggest than an unbiased objective comparison of the facts (unbiased also means without fear) will lead one the logical conclusion that sometimes war is necessary, regardless of how much we hate it.
Who says I'm "anti-war type"?
which city they would prefer goes first to an Iraqi-supplied Islamonazi nuke.
Which ever one you are living in. Since we are dealing with mythical weapons,the Easter Bunny can deliver it.
Since according to you we're only allowed a second-strike offensive,
Hey,why not attack Canada? They're closer,they have a smaller army,and they are as guilty of attacking us as Iraq is. After all,according to you it is ok to just ahead and attack countries at random because they MIGHT attack us at some time in the future. Some of them even speak French!
But there's a serious question there. What sort of attack do we have to wait for, and how many more dead Americans will be justification in your mind?
Oh yeah,that's a serious question allright. It reminds me of BaBa WaWa's famous,"If you were a tree,what type of tree would you be?".
The way I see it... the world will get along just fine without Saddam. Getting rid of him, even absent any more evidence of madness and willingness to use chem, bio, or nuke weapons, is just fine.
Sure. Why not? Our military isn't doing anything else,so we should just go ahead and kill a few hundred thousand people for no reason at all,other than "we can".
They fall into two catagories.
When the pompous asses gather together,they are sure to elect you as their king. The depth of your understanding is only surpassed by the beauty of Janet Reno,and the wisdom of Patches Kennedy.
YOU,preaching about reality???? ROFLMAO!
You state that poor Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11. Well here's a dose of your own medicine:
Prove it!
Then, you suggest this bizarre scenario where you leave the spoils of Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Syria(!)
But I guess Syria is an innocent little non-terrorist state as well.
You know, I can't believe you came back on to spew your inanities and get slapped around by the people here again, but let me address your so-called response to me: Since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, it would have been a crass political calculation to conduct a military strike against them. You are the one advocating war for no good reason. You are the one who wants to satisfy your bloodlust. Attacking Iraq will save untold future lives. Both here and there.
Right. When they're not selling classified military technology to the Chinese that we GAVE them. With friends like that,who needs the French?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.