1)There were 10 years and 17, yes 17 ignored resolutions passed by the UN. It was also very apparent to the world that the UN was a weak impotent body that was only good for pushing paper (a paper tiger if you will) and a body that would in all likelyhood never have acted even if there were as many as 100 resolutions. And why? Because there were nations, like Russia for instance, on the security council that would have never ever jeapordized the lucrative business arrangements they had with Iraq and many other nations that are not our friends.
Now talking and negotiatin is first and foremost the way to go, but there also has to be a point that you have to do more than talk and keep issuing meaningless resolutions until the cows come home. Simply put, when is enough enough? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?
Look at it this way, if you (US) and a group of acquaintances (nations of the world) are walking down the street and the neighborhood bully (Iraq) who has been harrasing and hurting one of your aquaintances suddenly starts beating him mercylessly, would you and the other neighborhood aquaintences just stand around and do nothing to help defend that person because most of the other aquintences just stand there afraid to do anything, or would you have the courage to take the lead to try and help him even if no one or few follow to help? If you say of course you would jump in, then you are doing exactly what George W. Bush had the courage to do!
The point is, you can't have it both ways. Either everyone, including you, has to listen to the UN, or nobody does. "Mom says don't eat from the cookie jar! I SWEAR I WILL EAT ALL THE COOKIES IF YOU KEEP THIS UP!"
2) And forget about the weapons of mass destructions issue. It hasen't been proved that Bush had intellegence that differed from what the rest of the congress had when they decided to support Bush's actions! It's NOT A LIE when you find out after the fact that something was not as you thought it was no matter how much political opponants what you to believe otherwise! And don't even bring up that he made mistakes afterward! I'll answer that one right here up front... yes he did make mistakes, but he is only human like everyone else. He is after all our president and as such he is subject to criticisms - truthful criticisms. However, our president should alsos be supported by his country and not be undermined like he was for the sake of partisan politics.
There is lying. And then there is boldly going forth reading what you want to read. "I just drove here." You can read that to believe the person quoted is a car fanatic because they drive, etc. Or you can simply accept the fact that the person arrived in a vehicle that is operated by a person on a road. Which is all it actually says. Bush committed us to a war by reading and assuming a lot of things that simply turned out not to be accurate. That is not responsible of him, period.
Second, he claimed tons of WMDs and what not. He was wrong. He was flat out wrong. But did he say, to the nation, as this "courageous" man we elected, "My fellow Americans, one of the reasons we went into this war was because I believed something was there, and it wasn't. I'm sorry." I mean he could even have tacked on some downplay involving how much good we accomplished with it and I'd respect him more. I screw up. I do it quite often, actually. I always admit it, and if someone was hurt by it, I apologize. I expect no less of our leader.
3) This last item is something that makes me wonder why no one ever talks about it. Following Desert Storm's defeat of the Iraq army following the invasion into Kuwait, a no fly zone was established in the southern area of the country to protect Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia from future attacks. It wasn't long before Sadam starting thumbing his nose at and taunting the US who was officially the air guardian of the no fly zone. The violations kept getting more frequent and more daring and the previous president as best as I know did little about it. Then Comes George W, followed by 9-11 and way too many UN resolutions and you know the rest. So again I say, when is enough enough?
Saddam had just as much right to thumb his nose at the UN as we do. We aren't special. We aren't kindly. We aren't benevolent. We aren't humanitarians. We don't have a god given right to do what we want in the face of opposition any more than Hussein did. Crooks go free if our police don't follow the laws that govern how they should do their job. That is what we have decided to base our system on. On the unwavering belief of government of the people, for the people, by the people. And on the the inalienable human rights of any individual, including the right to not be tortured into self incrimination.
Hobbling system, I know. Quite often not fair for victims. All that. I know. Were I crowned king of the world, with unmitigated, absolute power, there would be some changes around here, let me tell you. I personally think they'd be for the good of all man kind. The main one is that if a lawyer chooses to defend someone, and they turn up guilty, they get punished the same as the guilty. But thats besides the point.
I'm not absolute dictator of the world, and neither is George W. Bush. He has rules he has to follow, inconvenient or not. The people's representatives, the congress of the United States, chose some time ago to belong as members of a world governing body, the United Nations. Last time I checked, they did not vote to secede from it. That means we are bound by the rules and regulations entailed in being a member of it, like it or not. Maybe its desirable to invade Iraq. Maybe its desirable for me to mug somebody and make some money. Doesn't mean I can do it, because it is illegal. (Not to mention wrong!)
Hypocrisy is the worst scourge of humanity, and anyone who perpetuates it on a grand scale deserves to be boiled in oil. Unfortunately, that is cruel and unusual, so I guess we'll just have to hang them.
Now as someone previously told me, "I'm not going to change anyones mind," but I do believe that some people who do maintain an open mind and can change their opinions, and that there are some people who have made up their minds no matter what, and there are also some people who would like to see speach suppressed when facts and opinions that differ from their own are presented. (dont confuse this last statement with my previous request to close this topic. That request was made because it was becoming apparant that I was being singled out along with one other person because our political beliefs differered from the other two posters involved)
Again thank you for providing me a reason for expressing my thoughts especially No. 3!
If you come up with something that is convincing, you'll convince me. Of that I promise you.
Here! Here!
And let's not forget the fact that Clinton/Gore promised the moon on passenger rail and gave us nada, nothing, zippo. In fact, cuts took place under the Clinton administration and that hideous self-sufficiency act was signed under his watch which started the 'glidepath' debacle that Amtrak is still paying for to this day.
Amtrak has had bi-partisan support in congress and to say one party supports it over another is simply ignoring facts and therefore does not lend itself to a truly honest debate.
I don't mean to be singling out Clinton/Gore here, but it is an example of when it comes to politicians, talk is cheap and I'll believe things when I see 'em.
Dan
I dunno other people, but its not that McCain is a republican that bothers me. He could be a member of the HooberGoober policy and I'd feel the same way. McCain, with regard to Amtrak, has displayed quite a history of not supporting it, personally. Biden has, as has Obama. On this issue, as with most others, I go with the track record. I remember the kid who got elected in my school council by promising soda would be free. Yeah. Right.
yEA rIGHT and "E Pluribus Unum" too!!! I don't know what most of those words mean, but they look and sound appitizing!
