On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
> resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of
> previous UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports
> detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to
> fully cooperate with inspectors.

This entirely disregards the UN stating a position against immediate
action on the US's part, which President Bush chose to flatly ignore
in his address Monday evening. The UN Security Council is allowed to
change its mind. Just because they said the use of force could be
justified doesn't mean that the Security Council approves of the
US's current actions; that's completely twisting their words (and
quite obviously not the case).

> > So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.
> This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does
it
> delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.

I think it was intended as a suggestion that bombing Iraq won't make
the use of unconventional warfare against the US any less likely.
And get enough of the EU pissed off and it could lead to the use
of conventional warfare against the US. Fun!

> As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> are behind him.

Oh? Really? You asked them yourself? Because you sure didn't provide
a reference or a statistical error distribution...

> Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you
> pick the world's leaders?

Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by
President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the
kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but
still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected?
Right then.

(No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's
reasonable doubt is damning.)

--
gabriel rosenkoetter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Reply via email to