Justice?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Four questions
1- Did the Iraq war benefit the American people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony against the United States throughout the Muslim world? The lower oil prices from occupying an oil-producing country? The permanent military presence the United States will be able to establish in Iraq? Name the benefit. "Yes" is not sufficient.

Originally Posted by randolph

2- Did the Iraq war benefit the Iraqi people?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

I do know some Iraqis. While you're busy imagining what they think might be nice, they remind me that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before the United States invaded, that despite living under a despot there was general peace in the country, that other than the criminal blockade that kept medicine (primarily) from children foodstuffs were generally available ... etc., etc., etc. At least one of my Iraqi acquaintances has told me that he would take the entire Hussein family in power for his entire life over the death of his 76-year-old mother in a bombing by the United States military.

Originally Posted by randolph

3- Did the war increase the influence of Iran?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

The answer to this question is yes, even if Tracy Coxx reveals a profound lack of understanding of the region. The current Iraqi regime supported by the United States is closely aligned with Iran. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iran had little influence in Iraq. Now, as the CIA itself acknowledges, Iran wields enormous political influence within the sitting Iraqi government. And who made that happen? The United States.

Originally Posted by randolph

4- Did the war diminish the influence of Al Quida?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Iraq became "an Al Qaeda magnet" after the U.S. invasion, because there's nothing like an unwarranted invasion of a Muslim country to aid the recruitment of Muslim radicals and get them to go and fight the "infidel" in the invaded country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What is the benefit? The billions of dollars spent? The thousands of lives lost? The bitter acrimony ...

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolf, I believe it's against forum rules to be using two accounts.

I guess when one doesn't even respect the discussion -- or a single one of the discussants (including those with whom there is agreement) -- enough to respond to actual points made, it's time to pull out a bullshit statement like this. Everyone knows it's not Randolph doing my posting.As I wrote elsewhere, it's political cowardice when someone throws out ideological "bombs" or regurgitates talking points but won't back them up in real discourse.

[randolph]

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

When the Constitution was being developed, the issue of slavery was discussed and some members wanted it abolished. The final version avoided the issue. So in a sense, slavery was neither Constitutional or unconstitutional.

When Earl Warren was on the Supreme Court, he would ask before making a decision "is it fair?". To me, that is the same as, is it just?. Justice is the "purview" of the Supreme Court because the Constitution is based on the concept of Justice. "Liberty and justice for all"

It seems to me that the current court is dominated by members that put their personal extreme conservatism above the realities of the Constitution.
The decision to allow corporations to buy Congress was one of the most egregious unfair unjust decisions ever made by the Court and is unconstitutional, in my opinion.

[randolph]

Tracy

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

I don't think is dragged out for lack of support. It dragged out because of extremely poor planning for the implementation of the war by Rumsfield.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

The war was devastating for the people of Iraq and opened up a contentious battle between Shias and Sunnies for control of the country that probably will never be resolved.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

Again it is a conflict between Sunnies and Shias. Iran is run by fanatical Shias and is of great concern to Saudi Arabia who has just ordered billions of dollars of military equipment to bolster their military.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Al Qaeda was a minor issue in Iraq. If we had focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we could have cleaned out Al Qaeda and possibly stabilized Afghanistan.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

People Tracy Coxx agrees with render justice. People Tracy Coxx disagrees with make political decisions.

What a facile pile of crap. It's not even a serious argument.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

People Tracy Coxx agrees with render justice. People Tracy Coxx disagrees with make political decisions.

What a facile pile of crap. It's not even a serious argument.

I was responding to randolph actually.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

WIth appointees like Sonia Sotomayor, it's heading towards political decisions. One or two more appointees like her and the Supreme Court will be as loony as the 9th Circuit Court. Only there will be no one to overturn them.

For once i total agree with you but just so hell doesn't freeze over i do need to remind you that she was on W's short list for the court

Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

For once i total agree with you but just so hell doesn't freeze over i do need to remind you that she was on W's short list for the court

I never liked W's stance on illegal immigration, and I'm sure she's just the kind of judge he would have been looking for.