So britian will provide 40,000 troops and Australia will provide 2000 with fighters and warships. How again is this unilateral? Sure, the US is providing the overwhelming majority of the forces, yet, other countries are still supplementing them.
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.
# Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Bush has, without a doubt, recognized only his side of the subject. If others tack onto his decision, it's still his side of the subject. It's clear that even if Blair had to drop out because he couldn't get 'popular' support, Bush would move forward. Why? Because it's a unilateral decision. He's working only with his side of the subject.
Were he to take into account the reservations of other countries, which he's not, not even those of our strongest ally in this situation, then it would have been a joint decision. It's not. It's clearly not. It really doesn't matter if 200 Polish troops go to Iraq, because they're not involved in the process. It's clear that Bush, and Bush alone is calling the shots. That's unilateral.
"any color you want as long as it's black"
That's the process Bush has gone through. If you want war, then your opinion is OK. If you don't, then it's not considered relevant. That's unilateral no matter how many people you can get on your side.
A terrorist might not, but popular support for terrorism will increase because of the unilateral attack. When the U.N. supports a move, the average 'Joe' is content that justice will be served. When the U.S. makes a unliateral pre-emptive strike the average 'Joe' will realize they have no chance to deal with the U.S. diplomatically.
I don't think most of these average joe islamic radicals care much for the UN, either way. I can't see Osama using UN violations as recruiting material. With or without UN approval, US superpower status is enough for those that would join up, to join up. US superpower status is enough for the to feel that they have no chance to deal with the US diplomatically.
It's not against a mandate, that's true. It is clearly against the U.N. Charter though. Hopefully Bush will be held responsible for the breach.
I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.
As far as hold Bush accountable. I don't think there is any breach to hold him accountable for, but if there is, if the UN can't hold Saddam accountable, how can the hope to hold the leader of the sole superpower accountable?
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.
It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...
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.
And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
The government is made up of representatives voted for by the people. Democratic republics aren't governed by public opinion polls. If that were the case be prepared for socialized everything and no taxes. Laws in the midwest requiring open-carry of handguns, illegal abortion and mandatory prayer in school.
8 years of Clinton-politick left you in serious need of a re-education in the basic function and make-up of our federal government.
Quote:
What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
What you are doing is making things up because you don't have enough real facts to constitute a real argument!
The masses aren't as anti-war as you like to make it seem. Not even close.
"I have the right to start this war because of the 9/11 attack."
9/11 changed the way potential threats are viewed...imagine that.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
"I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
An opinion based on intelligence information. Has been disputed. Some say yes, some say no. But if one believes it, it seems a pretty strong reason for action.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
"I am not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks."
???
If they are involved together, that doesn't mean Iraq was involved in 9/11. Is that really a difficult concept?
Actually, what the Presidential mandate says Bush can do is attack all parties involved with the 9/11 attacks. And that is the mandate that Bush is trying to stand behind to justify his actions. So yes, he apparently is saying Iraq was involved with 9/11.
Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.
I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.
Thanks for the compliment!
Defensive wars are A.O.K. Pre-emptive wars are A.O.K. if there is an imminent threat.
An attack on a soverign nation without direct provocation is not A.O.K.
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.
It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...
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.
And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?
Why wouldn?t someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam? I know why the French government doesn?t. I can also rationalize why the German government doesn?t. But why wouldn?t you? You are an American. Or are you? Are the reasons really rational, or really just emotional at their core? You don?t think this will be a better world without Saddam? You don?t think this will a better world if American values are implanted everywhere on the globe. America turned around many evil and despotic regimes. Why not Iraq? What?s so special about Iraq?
Why wouldn?t someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam?
Just to speak for myself, I do want him gone. But I also want Bush gone. There are legitimate ways and not-so-legitimate ways to change leadership though.
I'm not saying Iraq should vote him out of office because obviously that can't happen. But, a war based on U.N. Resolutions without U.N. backing, or a war based on seriously suspect refuted evidence, is no better to me.
We?ve already gone through that before. Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate. Given that, referring to the UN as though it carries some kind of moral legitimacy is the height depravity.
Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.
So where's the proof? Or is this like the info we can't share on WOMD?
But what about the Bush administration (and Clinton's before him) giving aid to North Korea?
I?ve already spoken to that in my previous post. (In the other thread) That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.
That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.
So you agree the Bush administration is "VOID and illigitimate"? Don't cave in so easy, at least put up a fight just for the sake of appearances. And that's without me bringing up American support for Saddam over many years.
Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate.
What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.
Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.
In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.
Quote:
mika:
Why not Iraq? What?s so special about Iraq?
What is so special about Iraq? Many more people are suffering in Africa. Wouldn't it do more good for more people if the focus, funds and energy were directed at improving lives on that continent?
But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.
What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.
Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.
In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.
The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.
Quote:
But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.
And you?re arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddam?s. Therefore, I cannot but infer that there?s an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.
The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.
You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. 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.
Quote:
And you?re arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddam?s. Therefore, I cannot but infer that there?s an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.
It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.
Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?
Comments
Originally posted by BR
So britian will provide 40,000 troops and Australia will provide 2000 with fighters and warships. How again is this unilateral? Sure, the US is providing the overwhelming majority of the forces, yet, other countries are still supplementing them.
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.
From www.dictionary.com:
# Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
Bush has, without a doubt, recognized only his side of the subject. If others tack onto his decision, it's still his side of the subject. It's clear that even if Blair had to drop out because he couldn't get 'popular' support, Bush would move forward. Why? Because it's a unilateral decision. He's working only with his side of the subject.
Were he to take into account the reservations of other countries, which he's not, not even those of our strongest ally in this situation, then it would have been a joint decision. It's not. It's clearly not. It really doesn't matter if 200 Polish troops go to Iraq, because they're not involved in the process. It's clear that Bush, and Bush alone is calling the shots. That's unilateral.
"any color you want as long as it's black"
That's the process Bush has gone through. If you want war, then your opinion is OK. If you don't, then it's not considered relevant. That's unilateral no matter how many people you can get on your side.
Originally posted by bunge
A terrorist might not, but popular support for terrorism will increase because of the unilateral attack. When the U.N. supports a move, the average 'Joe' is content that justice will be served. When the U.S. makes a unliateral pre-emptive strike the average 'Joe' will realize they have no chance to deal with the U.S. diplomatically.
I don't think most of these average joe islamic radicals care much for the UN, either way. I can't see Osama using UN violations as recruiting material. With or without UN approval, US superpower status is enough for those that would join up, to join up. US superpower status is enough for the to feel that they have no chance to deal with the US diplomatically.
Originally posted by bunge
It's not against a mandate, that's true. It is clearly against the U.N. Charter though. Hopefully Bush will be held responsible for the breach.
I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.
As far as hold Bush accountable. I don't think there is any breach to hold him accountable for, but if there is, if the UN can't hold Saddam accountable, how can the hope to hold the leader of the sole superpower accountable?
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.
It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...
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.
And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.
British citizens are firmly against war?
Last I checked 50% support war sans UN.
Firmly against war? Hmm indeed.
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
The government is made up of representatives voted for by the people. Democratic republics aren't governed by public opinion polls. If that were the case be prepared for socialized everything and no taxes. Laws in the midwest requiring open-carry of handguns, illegal abortion and mandatory prayer in school.
8 years of Clinton-politick left you in serious need of a re-education in the basic function and make-up of our federal government.
What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
What you are doing is making things up because you don't have enough real facts to constitute a real argument!
The masses aren't as anti-war as you like to make it seem. Not even close.
Originally posted by tonton
???
"I have the right to start this war because of the 9/11 attack."
9/11 changed the way potential threats are viewed...imagine that.
Originally posted by tonton
"I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
An opinion based on intelligence information. Has been disputed. Some say yes, some say no. But if one believes it, it seems a pretty strong reason for action.
Originally posted by tonton
"I am not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks."
???
If they are involved together, that doesn't mean Iraq was involved in 9/11. Is that really a difficult concept?
Originally posted by tonton
Actually, what the Presidential mandate says Bush can do is attack all parties involved with the 9/11 attacks. And that is the mandate that Bush is trying to stand behind to justify his actions. So yes, he apparently is saying Iraq was involved with 9/11.
Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.
Originally posted by Tulkas
I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.
Thanks for the compliment!
Defensive wars are A.O.K. Pre-emptive wars are A.O.K. if there is an imminent threat.
An attack on a soverign nation without direct provocation is not A.O.K.
Originally posted by giant
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.
Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!
Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.
It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...
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.
And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?
Why wouldn?t someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam? I know why the French government doesn?t. I can also rationalize why the German government doesn?t. But why wouldn?t you? You are an American. Or are you? Are the reasons really rational, or really just emotional at their core? You don?t think this will be a better world without Saddam? You don?t think this will a better world if American values are implanted everywhere on the globe. America turned around many evil and despotic regimes. Why not Iraq? What?s so special about Iraq?
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Why wouldn?t someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam?
Just to speak for myself, I do want him gone. But I also want Bush gone. There are legitimate ways and not-so-legitimate ways to change leadership though.
I'm not saying Iraq should vote him out of office because obviously that can't happen. But, a war based on U.N. Resolutions without U.N. backing, or a war based on seriously suspect refuted evidence, is no better to me.
We?ve already gone through that before. Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate. Given that, referring to the UN as though it carries some kind of moral legitimacy is the height depravity.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate.
But what about the Bush administration (and Clinton's before him) giving aid to North Korea?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.
So where's the proof? Or is this like the info we can't share on WOMD?
Originally posted by jimmac
So where's the proof? Or is this like the info we can't share on WOMD?
very possibly. Sometimes intelligence sources and material are kept secret, fact of life.
Originally posted by bunge
But what about the Bush administration (and Clinton's before him) giving aid to North Korea?
I?ve already spoken to that in my previous post. (In the other thread) That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.
So you agree the Bush administration is "VOID and illigitimate"? Don't cave in so easy, at least put up a fight just for the sake of appearances. And that's without me bringing up American support for Saddam over many years.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate.
What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.
Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.
In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.
mika:
Why not Iraq? What?s so special about Iraq?
What is so special about Iraq? Many more people are suffering in Africa. Wouldn't it do more good for more people if the focus, funds and energy were directed at improving lives on that continent?
But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.
Originally posted by giant
What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.
Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.
In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.
The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.
Quote:
But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.
And you?re arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddam?s. Therefore, I cannot but infer that there?s an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.
You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. 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.
And you?re arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddam?s. Therefore, I cannot but infer that there?s an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.
It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.
Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?