Poor thinking by Bush and the conservatives

[3L33T32003]

As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

 

[LemonHead]

 

[wnied]

YABTAN - Yet Another Bush Thread Ad Nauseum.

~wnied~

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

1.If it does not call for force, why is it such a big deal to pass the next resolution which reinterates 1441?
2. HOw can the UN be relevent if it cannot back up its own resolutions.
3. We would simply be enforcing the will of the UN.

 

[XZeroII]

Shut up. Your 13 year old thoughts are not welcome here.

 

[Mrburns2007]

I think Bush and the Conservatives are thinking very clearly and so does Dick Gephart!

 

[Electrode]

Well said, especially point 3.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a guestion of where you come down on the threat from Iraq. If Saddam had a nuke in our future he hoped to smuggle in or a germ or gas disaster of huge proportion and war stopps him I, say you're wrong, but if he causes that to happen through someone's vengence than you are right. I can see no way to know for sure which is true. I personally don't think his primary focus is on either. I think he's got his sites on empire and a new American century.

 

[oliver2k]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

good points....if we do not obey the will of the UN we become invalid and the rest of the world should bomb the f*ck out of us.
everyone here hopefully knows that the greek embassador has resigned....he served under four different presidents, he said he just can't put up with what is going on now....

read his letter to secretary of state

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Electrode
Well said, especially point 3.

#3???? That drivel? We are actually enforcing these resolutions, while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.

 

[Mrburns2007]

We are the "policeman of the world" stop pretending were not.


There are plenty of little dictators that don't invade other countries because there afraid of what the United States will do!

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah you're right. We should just forget about it.

 

[EXman]

Point is Moot anyhow we got so many troops over there now they are not coming home w/o a victory. The UN is powerless to stop Iraq/Bagdad/Saddam from feeling the full wrath of the US might. I look forward to a swift victory to shut you nut jobs up! j/k

For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

Ummm No I do not think so. Have you seen the Footage of the Kurds that were gassed? Watch the Savidge Report on MSNBC. This guy has Killed innocents conservately in the neighborhood of 500k! The Guy has Already used Chemical weapons it is not a matter of will he again but WHEN he will. And don't think for a second that Saddam is not trying actively to hit the US in some respect, and we all know he cannot directly from half way around the world. Yup he's gonna aid terrorists maybe not al Quaida but still terrorists with the same goal in mind killing you and me.:disgust:

put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[Gaard]

<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

 

[gump47371]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

When France stops selling parts to benefit Iraq, then they won't have as much business interest there, and won't think with their wallets.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

 

[Babbles]

Somebody sounds clueless.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

You did not answer the question, try again.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

You did not answer the question, try again.

Huh? Your question is answered. Why do you say it isn't?

 

[EXman]

hehe no one read my response now we have this thread going to the dawgs.... :disgust:

oh my gosh...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

You did not answer the question, try again.

Huh? Your question is answered. Why do you say it isn't?

i asked

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

You did not list a single condition that would allow the UN approve a forceful disarming of Iraq. Restating the question is not an answer.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<... while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.>>

Are you confused?

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

If a resolution is passed granting the use of force.

You guys aren't thinking France = the UN are you?

You did not answer the question, try again.

Huh? Your question is answered. Why do you say it isn't?

i asked

Under what conditions will the UN support a forcefull disarming of Iraq?

You did not list a single condition that would allow the UN approve a forceful disarming of Iraq. Restating the question is not an answer.

Listen dude. You do realize what the letters UN stand for, right? If you wanted to ask me under what conditions would other countries support a war you should've asked me that. The UN will only support a war if one is voted on and passed. Got it?

The boy in the post above said trhe UN has said it would not support a war no matter what. He's wrong. You're wrong.

Try again

 

[Linflas]

Commentary by A. M. Rosenthal

War against Iraq was
12 years in the making

Newspapers, TV news and commentary programs, weekly magazines, quarterlies, placards by the million - just about every technique of shouting the news has said it day and night until listeners and readers from one end of the country to the other take it for granted: America is rushing to war.
One day soon, the United States is likely to be fully at war against Iraq. Then, around the world, people of all nations, whether supporters of America or its enemies, will simply tell each other that the U.S. and its President started the war after a helter-skelter rush toward it. The consensus will be that the U.S. started the war like some wild cowboy country that lusted for the death of its young people. After all, all it had to do to obey the "stop the war" signs was turn to its chief enemy and say, Why sure, that's a great idea, why don't we do it right now, Saddy?

The facts, however, tell another story. Twelve years ago, after the end of the Gulf War, Iraq's Saddam Hussein became our responsibility; we've been trying to get rid of him ever since. But our Presidents during those years - first George Bush, then Bill Clinton - apparently forgot that we were responsible for him, or just didn't want to think about him.

There was no treaty - just a bunch of UN resolutions that Saddam tore up. What he did do in a hurry was set his country to making what he wants most in this world - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He rushed them while the U.S. and other theoretical victors of the war were impotent, unable even to find the bombs, much less destroy them.

Saddam was legally obligated to use the money from his oil exports to bring food and medicine into Iraq. He had a good laugh at that, then used the money to build more palaces and make the weapons of mass destruction that aroused such passion in him.

The weapons were illegal, but some Western countries and Russia sold their makings to Saddam anyway. As for the UN inspectorate in Iraq, it did not know a diddle about where the weapons had been hidden.

Of course, the U.S. could have found out if it had put its back to it. It could have made sure the weapons were discovered and punished Saddam with sanctions that hurt the Iraqi government, not the children. It could have put Saddam in prison, not just for violating UN resolutions, but for committing ceaseless, hideous tortures.

Bush I and Clinton did almost nothing. But here is a chuckle - if you feel in the mood for ugly humor. It was written into those scraps of paper that Saddam threw away that after 15 days, if he did not turn over a detailed list of the whereabouts of hidden chemical, bacteriological and nuclear materials, he would be considered to be in violation of UN rules.

The 15 days passed. More than 4,000 days passed. Yet nobody at the UN has thought of announcing the obvious: Saddam has been at war with the UN ever since 1991, really, truly, at war with the whole organization.

So the second Bush decided he would have to do something about it. He sees the Saddam arsenal as a threat to the U.S. and the torture chambers a disgusting shame to all nations that do not at least try to destroy them.

It is only compared to the sloth with which the UN has dealt with Saddam for more than a decade that the President seems to be rushing to get rid of him. Which he will do.

Link to the above commentary

 

[Gaard]

Oh yeah, I just wanted to say that according to you, the UN already supports the use of force. Remember?