I was trying to prepare a point by point argument...and then I just kept laughing my ass off at the ludicrous reasoning I keep seeing. I'll try to keep it together:
"As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls."
"We were in the UN to seek the moral and unambiguously legal right to go to war. We didn't get it. "
You are assuming it is needed. Historically, it hasn't always been sought. Secondly, there is no question that the UN security council has proved itself totally ineffective in these matters. They have stood idly by and watched slaughters. They are toothless.
Bunge:"The United States, or Bush, has made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq outside of the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution. The number of countries doesn't matter. That's not how 'unilateral' is defined."
1. Your argument that this is unilateral is totally without merit. You accuse Bush of "pushing one side". WTF else would he do? I'm sure he "cares" that some other nations don't support the action....but he is going to do it anyway because he believes it has to be done. The man has an opinion and he made very effort to convince the UN of that opinion. Due to France's position, he couldn't get explicit authorization. That doesn't make it immoral. By your reasoning, anyone with an opinion that acts upon it is acting unilaterally. If anyone was acting unilaterally, it was FRANCE.
The final estimate was that we would have gotten TEN VOTES. Who was being unilateral, again? Let's see...the US with 30-45 nations on board. Or, France with itself. Hmmmm.
2. The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge.
3. OUR CONSTITUTION How? Where? The President has explicit authority under the congressional resolution. We went through 6 months (not to mention 12 years) of diplomacy. He has submitted the required notice to Congress that he must now use the military. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids military actions when the President and his administration determine there is a threat. Nothing. What a ridiculous, assasine statement.
"You know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention."