Agreed but they are intertwined. Europe does a lot of trade with us and vice versa. To not be respective of other countries will only isolate ourselves and that is not good.
There is a difference between being respective and doing what you need to do.
Interesting. I was unaware that 678 authorized use of force beyond removing Saddam from Kuwait. 678 only demanded that Iraq comply witih 660. 660 only demanded Iraq pull out of Kuwait. If 687/678/660 authorized force of any kind, even after Iraq pulled out of Kuwait, then why did Bush 41 (and Powell) stop the attack and not continue on to Baghdad?
If you read 678 it reads as restoring previous borders of Kuwait and ensuring security in the region.
687 is a cease fire agreement Iraq signed. If you break the cease fire the consequences are quite apparent. War will break out.
As for Bush not continuing I think it was quite clear if he did that the Arab coalition would fall apart. He played the political game.
We had support in the war on terror in Afghanistan. We should have taken advantage of that instead of waiting 5 months after the first cruise missile strike to place ground forces in Afghanistan. Bush wanted to go it alone and it cost us the ability to capture bin Laden and his key aides.
You cant exactly move large amountf of forces overnight. Sure you can put teams on the ground in a fast manner. But getting everything in place takes time. Remember the area is pretty much exactly on the other side of the Earth.
Why is it everytime somebody brings up an opposing viewpoint, conservatives use the term "liberal"?
Fair question. The reason I use the term is because 99% of the time the viewpoint is based of half-truths or personal bias. And for the most part Liberals lately tend to just cry and whine about anything and everything Bush.
To answer your question, it is neocons that support Bush's war on Iraq. True conservatives do not. And, use of force is certainly the most serious consequence but use of force is not specifically stated in 1441. You're trying to read more into than is really there.
I dont know where all of a sudden liberals are the authority on who and who doesnt support the war in Iraq. Especially to the point where they can label people who support the war as neocons and the ones who dont true conservatives.
I think it is painfully clear that Iraq was in violation of two UN resolutions that are directly related to the use of force. 687 which is a cease fire agreement and 678 which has them as a serious security threat.
There is nothing to read into it. I suggest taking a look for yourself.
That is such an ignorant, hawkish, war-mongering line of thinking and it's that line of thinking that got us into this mess.
What about that is ignorant? Do you think democracy was going to foster itself under Saddam? How about the rest of the religious dictatorships in the ME? Iraq is a very good place to foster democracy through the two pronged approach.
Here we are, 7 weeks from June 30 and even Brahimi doesn't know who will be the leader of Iraq. The Bush administration doesn't want the interim Iraqi government to even be able to enact any laws! It will be a purely puppet government and will not be accepted, much less respected, by the Iraqi populace nor other Arab countries.
Now this is an ignorant and conspiracy laden view. I think the Bush administration does want things to get going. They have nothing to gain by a prolonged stay in Iraq. But first and foremost they need to secure the country to the point where it can sustain itself. This means using the bullets and bombs on the insurgents. But at the same time using the money to build communication towers, water plants, electricity plants, schools, sewers, and create an atmosphere where the common Iraqi wants to keep the terrorist and fundamentals out of power.
I think June 30th is a pipedream but eventually if we stay the course there will be elections and hopefully a seperation of church and state.
Facebook
Twitter