Keith Ray wrote: > When did the UN Security Council pass a resolution rescinding the use of > force? Earlier resolutions only declared a cease-fire contingent on Iraq > complying with all current and future resolutions.
The behavior of the world community under US pressure is much like the behavior of a niave computer chess program, which when faced with an unwinnable position, begins sacrificing all its pieces, because each such sacrifice pushes disaster just slightly beyond its lookahead threshhold. Faced with Bush the Elder bombing Iraqi civilians fleeing Kuwait along his "Highway of Death", including children in carseats, the UN approved a cease-fire with language in it the US wanted. The UN approved 1441 because it delayed a US threatened war. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The end result of all this is that the US does what it intended to do in the first place, namely invade Iraq, control its oil, scare other states in the region shitless, and remove something a bunch of Beanie-Headed Land Grabbers view as a security threat to God's Chosen People. However, due to all the capitulation the US has forced from other nations, and the UN, who are too stupid to see that they are simply being used as a fig leaf for naked US aggression, the resulting military action has the illusion of having been given some sort of imprimatur by the world community. Saddam should have told Bush to fuck himself when he suggested the propaganda inspectors go back into Iraq, especially since the previous team did nothing but engage in espionage under cover of the UN while they were there, and provide targeting information to the CIA which permitted the US to bomb almost all of Iraq's industrial infrastructure, none of which had anything to do with weapons manufacturing. The UN security council should have told Bush to go fuck himself, when he tried to trick them into a resolution they all believed would not authorize a war, which the US would later claim did. The UN has proved itself irrelevant, but not for inaction against Saddam. It has proved itself irrelevant for repeatedly knucking under to the United States, and allowing itself to be manipulated. This is a war between the US and Iraq, planned by the US and Israel for 11 years, with an pre-existing agenda, and the UN is merely being employed as Bush's merkin. > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are > behind him. That's probably 30% against the war on principle, 20% for the war on principle, and 50% who think it's a sin against God to not agree with authority. If Bush opposed a war, you'd probably find 80% in favor of that position. Polls are meaningless if you don't subtract the sheep. > Which article/amendment of the constitution states that the winner of > the popular vote wins the election? Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th > amendment seem to be pretty clear on the subject. Regardless of your > opinion of the 2000 elections, Bush *IS* the president and has been > given authorization to use force both by Congress and the UN. Since Congress has now abdicated its control over how war is declared, other nations have a legitimate reason to worry about a country that picks a random crackpot every 4 years that most of the people know little about, hands him the keys to the biggest arsenal in the world with no oversight, and lets him do anything as long as he isn't getting his cock sucked by the junior staff. The fallout from this war is that every other nation in the world, including our former allies, is going to want a credible deterent against the day when AmeriKKKa decides to bomb them. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
