> 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.
Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Try starting at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm, and following the references. Colin Powell summarized things best last September. From yesterday's NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html ): "France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.'" So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? > 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. > > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people > are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the "Bush Doctrine". Please, compare and contrast. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? (3) I'm not going to bother with "excuses for use of unconventional warfare". The lack of objective difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. For a view into the crystal ball, though, you might peruse opinions from our close allies about our Clear Mandate: Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274223&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2 Think about what it means when international markets switch to the Euro. But this is all pragmatic reasoning, surely nothing you're interested in. Have a fun war. -j -- Jamie Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits." - Chris Klein
