The United Nations holds no mandate over our actions. We are still a
sovereign nation capable of acting unilaterally.
You might not have thought it was a good idea, but that doesn't make it
illegal. Now I would be forced to agree that it was unconstitutional (read
illegal) as war was never formally declared, but for some reason we no
longer feel bound by the constitution in this country. As most mainstream
people, both left and right, believe that the constitution is a living,
interpreted document, you shouldn't complain about that too loudly. If we
want to strictly follow one section of the constitution, than all need be
applied equally (Firearms laws, private property, gov't only getting
involved in those things that are specifically mentioned in the
constitution).
Additionally why should we support the economies of nations that in effect
cost lives of American soldiers? These supposed allies (whose defense we
have bled for time and again) refused to take part in the fighting, and have
continued to take part in the reconstruction unless we met their demands.
They don't deserve our money, and make no mistake, this is our money.
I can't agree Kevin. We are doing nothing wrong here. We may have erred in
invading. I am sure we have made many mistakes during the occupation. Yet
we're still trying to do the right thing there, and the people that wouldn't
stand with us during the tough part shouldn't profit now that there is money
to be made.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:29 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for reopening
a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts for
Iraq's reconstruction.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search) said.
So let me get this straight.
1. Economy is bad.
2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
3. Get called on it by other countries.
4. Attack anyway
5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in an
illegal war.
And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect plan to
boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
-Kevin
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
