The War will not be unilateral...regardless of the UN.
The term unilateral is thrown around like a curse word by the Left. Assuming that acting unilaterally is a bad thing (and I'm not convinced it always is), I say this:
Regardless of whether we have a second resoltution, the US will NOT be acting unilaterally. The President has bent over backwords trying to garner international support. We have resolution 1441 on our side, which is about as clear as day. We also have ELEVEN other nations sending troops for the effort. At last count, there were some 60 nations on our side. Explain to me how that is unilateral?
The real problem is not our unilateralism, but the UN's failure to take any effective action. I fail to see how the US is being unilateral AT ALL. The fact of the matter is that we have and will use "the coalition of the willing" that the Presdient referred to. I do think he pefers to do it with another resolution (if for no other reason than to help Blair out), but he has certainly made it clear we'll go without it.
My point? We're not unilateral. It's a myth.
Regardless of whether we have a second resoltution, the US will NOT be acting unilaterally. The President has bent over backwords trying to garner international support. We have resolution 1441 on our side, which is about as clear as day. We also have ELEVEN other nations sending troops for the effort. At last count, there were some 60 nations on our side. Explain to me how that is unilateral?
The real problem is not our unilateralism, but the UN's failure to take any effective action. I fail to see how the US is being unilateral AT ALL. The fact of the matter is that we have and will use "the coalition of the willing" that the Presdient referred to. I do think he pefers to do it with another resolution (if for no other reason than to help Blair out), but he has certainly made it clear we'll go without it.
My point? We're not unilateral. It's a myth.
Comments
Going to war outside of a UN mandate bacause of a breach of a UN resolution is unilateral.
And if you still disagree, then we can all just call it an illegal war.
2) Unilateral, by definition:
One entry found for unilateral.
Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1802
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme> b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos>
3 : UNILINEAL
4 : having only one side
- uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb
In other words, it can't be said to be unilateral if even one other nation supports us. Since about 60 do, it's not unilateral. It's Leftist propoganda and nothing more. Anti-war protestors and the like throw it around like fact.
<strong>Of COURSE it's unilateral, silly: the FRENCH don't approve! Who else matters? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we should call it "Frenchilateral".
Vive Le Surrender!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Lateral = side.
If the US 'goes it alone' and doesn't take into account the view of other nations, that is uni-lateral. We're not even taking Britain's view into consideration. Rumsfeld has said that if the situation is too unpopular in the UK then we'll go without them.
Bush has decided this unilaterally. He is functioning unilaterally. To do it multilaterally he will have to stay within the framework of the UN channels so other nations have a say in what happens. As it stands, if we attack outside the framework of the UN then the US has the only say. That's unilateral.
Oh and Fran441: Thank you.
<a href="http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1"; target="_blank">http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1</a>;
Here's part of the tally so far...part of the tip of the iceberg of:
*The aluminum tubes affair....the allegation roundly debunked by the AIEA
*Mobile chemical/bio weapons labs allegations...squashed by the inspection teams
*WMD "evidence" crowed over by Powell and Blair...debunked when an activist discovered it was a 15 year old student dissertation masquerading as "current intelligence"
*"Radio intercepts" described as "amateur hour" by those conversant with the local Arabic dialects.
*Linking Saddam with Al Qaeda....CIA, MI6 say...*not*
*Photoshopped aerial pictures of alleged chemical weapons facilities.
*Allegations of gassing the Kurds....debunked...by the US' own military archives
*Allegations of an nuclear nuclear capacity; Bush was saying Iraq "months from having the bomb"...completely debunked by the IAEA
*The "best intelligence" supplied to the inspectors...slammed by the inspection teams as "garbage upon garbage upon garbage".
*no evidence of either biological or chemical weapons/manufacture, despite a 4 months of the inspection teams going "anywhere, everywhere" at any time, with no notice.
*Bush's key witness in justifying war, Saddam Hussein's deceased brother in law Kamel Hussein also stated categorically in an UNMOVIC document that Iraq's bio/chem weapons were dumped and destroyed in 1991 shortly after the Gulf War, before the early inspections regime arrived. (Inspectors are now investigating this)
This whole WMD routine is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. If the case is so strong, (a) where is the evidence? and (b) resorting to lies, fabrications, fraud, forgery, blackmail doesn't help credibility. Whatever happened to rationality?
Healthy skepticism? Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor...the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..etc" thing? If people are told that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" a million times on Fox and CNN every single day for months on end, then they will believe it, evidence or not.
It looks more and more unlikely every day that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. I absolutely detest Saddam Hussein and his vicious methods, ...being a liberal
Enough already.
Support our troops and BRING THEM HOME TO THEIR LOVED ONES
If there has to be a war, there has to be a damned good reason.
Where is the evidence? No more lies. No planting evidence.
If anyone in here has evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....please share what you have heard that convinces you that Bush and Co are correct.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Some of us have lives. If you want to get your panties in a wad about things try e-mailing/private messaging the other moderator of this forum or an administrator, as the posting guidelines say. If you don't want to do that then don't post crap like that in the forums, re-acquaint yourself with the guidelines helpfully linked at the top of every page.
This thread is redundant and heading off-topic quickly. Lock.