I don't smoke dope, I don't drink "koolade", and I don't pretend.
America was never in danger from Iraq during the entire recorded history of the planet earth, and there was NEVER any connection between Iraq and Al Queda, and any documents "discovered" now, have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Nothing the UN did or said was justification for invading Iraq. Neither the U.S., nor any other nation on earth takes orders from the UN. The U.S. Military does not answer to the UN. The U.S. military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend AMERICA from direct attacks and to do nothing else. It's not here to enforce UN resolutions, it's not here to overthrow dictators in foreign nations, it's not here to "liberate" oppressed people abroad, it's not here to practice "peace keeping" or "humanitarian aid" missions, it's not here to defend nations other than our own, it's not here to settle disputes among other nations, it's not here to train the military of other nations, it's not here to do anything other than to respond when we are directly attacked and never to start wars with any nation that has not directly attacked ours and never go to war unless a declaration of war has been made by Congress. I would accept your apology for wasting our time with your pathetic nonsense, but I doubt you really meant it. --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If this all you have to say after the nonsense you posted in here and > my rebuttal, then i want to apologize to you and the group for > wasting time and space even trying to have an educated conversation > with you. Please, go smoke some more dope, drink some koolade, and > pretend its all ok. "Peace at any cost," right Paul? LOL > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > There isn't a single valid libertarian justification for the war in > > Iraq or anything that would make it an act of defense. Any claims > of > > "connections" or "ties" between Iraq and Al Queda are utter > nonsense. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <buckygilbert@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > When the "reasoning behind that war" is that it is an > enforcement > > > > action pursuant to UN resolutions. > > > > > > Since when was the enforcement of UN resolutions the ONLY pretext > for > > > the war? > > > > > > > France has a veto on the UN Security Council, not in the UN > general > > > > assembly. And what of it anyway? The US has a UNSC veto as > well. If > > > > you set up an institution with a particular decisionmaking > > > procedure, > > > > the fact that that procedure may occasionally produce results > other > > > > than the ones you want isn't a reason for saying that the > procedure > > > is > > > > invalid. > > > > > > The first sentence here is true. AND WHAT OF IT ANYWAY? Sir, it > is > > > up to the council itself, and not individual members or the > general > > > assembly, to determine how resolutions are to be ENFORCED, not if > > > resolutions are passed. Thus, if every country in the UN had > agreed > > > it would not have mattered. Here are some of the countries that > > > supported, in case you have forgotten: Afghanistan, Albania, > Angola, > > > Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech > > > Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, > Estonia, > > > Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, > Kuwait, > > > Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, > > > Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, > > > Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, > Slovakia, > > > South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United > Kingdom, > > > United States, and Uzbekistan > > > > > > I suppose, following your logic, if North Korea had missile silos > > > aimed and ready to fire at the US and openly declared on such and > > > such a day and time they would blast us, we should wait for the > great > > > UN to decide for us how we should defend ourselves. This is the > > > exact logic many followed when they believed that the League of > > > Nations could prevent WWII. > > > > > > I had issues with the war, both before and now, and won't pretend > > > that I didn't. But its also not black and white as you and your > ilk > > > pretend. And I have never argued that the decision was invalid, > > > because no decision was ever made on enforcement. The UN serves > a > > > valid purpose, but is severely flawed. Success of sorts in Korea > and > > > the Congo did boost its international image. However, many of the > > > problems from the Cold War it could not stem. The effective > > > occupation of Eastern Europe by Russia made a mockery of the > promises > > > made at Yalta and other war meetings. The treatment of Hungary in > > > 1956 could not be stopped by the United Nations. Likewise, > America's > > > involvement in Vietnam could not be stopped. > > > > > > According to www.genocide.org, since the end of World War II and > the > > > founding of the United Nations, over 81 million people have been > > > killed in racial, religious, and political genocides across the > > > world. This number is 1350% greater than all those killed in the > Nazi > > > death camps. > > > > > > > > > > > > But now, instead of innocents dying under the swastika, they are > > > perishing under the blue flag of the UN and its farcical > peacekeeping > > > missions. Just within the past few years hundreds of civilians > where > > > slaughtered in Srebrenica, Bosnia, within eyeshot of 600 Dutch UN > > > peacekeepers who felt they were not authorized to interfere. > > > > > > And in Rwanda, millions were killed in ethnic cleansing campaigns > > > conducted under the nose of another UN peacekeeping mission led > by > > > now UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Just what does the UN > > > think "preventing genocide" means? It is obvious that the United > > > Nations has not only failed in its mission to prevent genocide, > but > > > has actually acted as its enabler, leading to the bloodiest 60 > years > > > in history. > > > > > > The United Nation's incompetence extends far beyond its > peacekeeping > > > missions. In the fight against starvation and disease, time and > time > > > again the UN has mismanaged and wasted hundreds of millions of > > > dollars of aid on spurious projects that seem aimed more toward > their > > > personal aggrandizement and creature comforts than helping the > > > suffering around the world. > > > > > > For example, in the 1980's, at the height of the Ethiopian > famine, > > > the UN spent over $75 million building and upgrading apartment > > > complexes for UN administrators and aid workers in Ethiopia while > > > food supplies rotted on the docks, unable to reach famine > stricken > > > areas due to a lack of transportation vehicles. And, more > recently, > > > in East Timor, the UN spent over $50 million to build hotels and > > > supermarkets for foreign visitors while neglecting the > development of > > > much needed local infrastructure and hospitals. > > > > > > The UN acts like any other European Socialist bureaucracy. The > > > bureaucrats arrogantly assume they know what is best for others > at > > > all times and any decision they make is correct for the simple > reason > > > that they made it. Above all else, the bureaucrats protect their > own, > > > accepting no responsibility for errors, and ensuring that all > blame > > > is placed outside of the organization. The end result is the UN > being > > > content to give starving people what the United Nations say they > > > need, not what the people require. If people want food and > medicine, > > > they get a soccer stadium. If people want a democracy, they are > given > > > a UN generated bureaucracy. The people want freedom, they get the > > > status quo. > > > > > > The problem with the United Nations is it wants all the power of > a > > > World Parliament but will assume none of the responsibility > > > associated with such power. In effect, the goal of the UN is to > > > dictate world peace on its terms, not facilitate it in a spirit > of > > > freedom and democracy. An international body dedicated to the > debate > > > of ideas and opening avenues of diplomacy is a wonderful idea, > but it > > > will never work so long as the international body feels no > > > accountability to the sovereign nations which compose it or the > > > people of the world it claims to protect. > > > > > > So please, don't attempt to lecture me on the role of the UN. > > > > > > William > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" > > > <thomaslknapp@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Quoth wgilbert02: > > > > > > > > > Geof, I wonder if everyone has also forgotten Ansar Al-Islam, > the > > > Al- > > > > > Queda affiliate operating in Northern Iraq that tried to > poison > > > > > British water supplies a few years ago as well? > > > > > > > > No, I haven't forgotten about Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda > affiliate > > > > which operated in (Kurdish-controlled and under the protection > from > > > > Saddam of US aircraft) northern Iraq. > > > > > > > > > Since when does any sovereign country in the world need > > > > > the permission of the UN to begin a war, irregardless of the > > > > > reasoning behind that war? > > > > > > > > When the "reasoning behind that war" is that it is an > enforcement > > > > action pursuant to UN resolutions. > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, the US had more than enough > > > > > votes within the UN to allow military assistance during the > > > invasion, > > > > > but France, who was one of the five countries with veto > power, > > > > > threatened to veto it, even if avery country in the UN was in > > > support. > > > > > > > > France has a veto on the UN Security Council, not in the UN > general > > > > assembly. And what of it anyway? The US has a UNSC veto as > well. If > > > > you set up an institution with a particular decisionmaking > > > procedure, > > > > the fact that that procedure may occasionally produce results > other > > > > than the ones you want isn't a reason for saying that the > procedure > > > is > > > > invalid. > > > > > > > > The US agreed to veto power for the WII Allied Powers on the > UNSC, > > > and > > > > accepted veto power AS one of the WWII Allied Powers on the > UNSC. > > > Then > > > > it brought the matter to the UN, not vice versa. > > > > > > > > Tom Knapp > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
