Letter to the Editor

"I can understand the point of having a draft to ensure national security, but to suggest that it should be reintroduced to “scare” people into pacifism..."

How does our illegal incursion into the nation of Iraq ensure our national security? Would you support a draft for the imminent invasion of Iran? I'm being serious here and would appreciate a response.

"At a time when more students know the name of Paris Hilton’s dog than the significance of Darfur, we perhaps would be better served by a more serious discussion of world events."

And what better tool then a draft to make people pay attention to the world around them. It seems to work for Israel, why not the United States? I guess Mr. Peterson just isn't serious about winning the "War on Terror."

"And to be honest, the threat of death to change one’s political view smacks of Stalin’s purges."

Wow, that is a comment of enormous stupidity. Learn something about Russian history and the purge before you try to compare it to the draft. That is just plain kooky.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on October 24, 2007 at 9:44 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

Whoa, what is "illegal" about the invasion of Iraq? What law was broken, domestic or international? The UN charter allows for preemptive warfare.

He's not comparing the draft to the purges; he's comparing the reasoning behind the purges to the reasoning behind the left's support for the draft. That's something quite different. It's nice to see you only needed six paragraphs to get around to calling someone stupid. That was productive.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Brandon_Minster on October 24, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

So Brandon, what is your response to that?

And he is plainly comparing the draft to the purge. I didn't call Mr. Peterson stupid (as you claim), I called his comment stupid. Nice try at smearing me though...keep up with your studies and try a little harder next time!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on October 24, 2007 at 2:45 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

What was the point of Security Council Resolution 1441? What does it mean for Iraq to be in material breach of Resolution 687 which established the end of UN-sanctioned hostilities in 1991? You cite Kofi Annan as if he still had any credibility. His inaction in the face of 11 years of Iraq non-compliance, coupled with his son's profiting from Oil-for-Food, has made Kofi Annan's opinion worthless. A comment of stupidity can have that stupidity without the commenter supplying it? And his comparison was the way the threat of death is being used politically. He says so quite plainly.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Brandon_Minster on October 25, 2007 at 11:15 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

Brandon: "A comment of stupidity can have that stupidity without the commenter supplying it?"

Umm, what? Want to try that one again?

"...has made Kofi Annan's opinion worthless."

That was not Annan's personal opinion. He was speaking officially from the Charter's point of view. I had a feeling you would (feebly) attack Annan though, good job!! Now, back to the business building with you...vile neocon poseur!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

All of Annan's opinions are his personal opinions. He has discredited himself and (somehow) further discredited the United Nations. "Speaking from the Charter's point of view"? Is he the Oracle of Delphi?

The question was: is the Iraq invasion illegal? Disagreeing on the UN charter is not "illegal." Enforcing UN resolutions per the very same UN resolutions is not "illegal." If you have a problem with the Iraq invasion, take it up with the Security Council which authorized it by Resolutions 687 and 1441, or take it up with the leader of Iraq who decided to not comply with those resolutions.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Brandon_Minster on October 26, 2007 at 12:48 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

Linguo, you've gone from a party robot to a Saddam apologist? Not even Saddam himself would claim to have allowed inspectors in again and again. The available evidence suggested he was hiding weapons and programs in violation of his agreements; if he had other evidence, why did he expel inspectors? Why did he restrict their free movements, again in violation of his agreements? Why will you give the benefit of a misplaced doubt to Saddam but not to America's evidence to the contrary?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Brandon_Minster on October 26, 2007 at 12:53 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

"Disagreeing on the UN charter is not "illegal.""

This is not a discussion about "disagreements" Brandon, it is an argument about unjustified aggression and misguided international policy. I'm sure for a simple-minded person like yourself it is easier to obsfucate and deflect though...good job!!

And, just for the record, I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...just not for the reasons put forth from the current administration (on Iraq, at least). My position at the time was similar to Hitchens'. I thought that, with intelligent planning (my mistake), the US could remove Saddam and install a proxy leader who would lead the country towards a positive future. We didn't do that though. We allowed the country to devolve into the Civil War that we face now. We f*cked up. What should have been a relatively calm transfer of power instead turned into a debacle and a disgrace. We should all be ashamed of what we did and (most importantly) what we didn't do. But feel free to continue to question your fellow Americans' patriotism Brandon...whatever helps you sleep at night.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on October 26, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

The UN put the burden of proof on Iraq, then found Iraq to be in material breach of that obligation. Anything that happened after that was a result of Iraq's failure to comply. I'm sorry Saddam felt "violated," but that's what happens when you instigate a war and then fail to abide by the ceasefire agreement. Given that UN inspectors agree that Iraq continued its illegal weapons program up until 2002, and that it illegally maintained the equipment necessary to restart the program later, Iraq's failure to allow free movement of weapons inspectors per UN mandate was grounds for military force, per UN resolutions. For someone as "neo-con" as s77 seems to think I am, I sure do support UN resolutions, don't I? s77, if you can't see the inherent disagreement in calling aggression "unjustified" or policy "misguided," then you're arrogance makes further exchange between the two of us unnecessary. I'm sorry if that's too "simple minded" for you.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Brandon_Minster on October 26, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter to the Editor

BM (how apt): "...if you can't see the inherent disagreement in calling aggression "unjustified" or policy "misguided," then you're arrogance makes further exchange between the two of us unnecessary."

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here. You can't pull random words out of a posting and attach your own misguided logic to them. I stated my reasoning about US foreign policy and our illegal aggression towards a nation that was neither a threat nor an active participant in the "terrorism" that was used to prop up our invasion. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I wrote? Don't you see how your ham-handed muddling of the situation hurts your argument? Do you even have an argument or are you content with being obtuse?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on October 26, 2007 at 5:18 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal