Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
We can debate this for as long as we live and the outcome will be the same....you will lose. There were inspections for over 11 years and Saddam never did abide by U.N. resolutions including the cease fire agreement which stated that he must prove that he destroyed his WMD....which he never did. After 9/11 it was clear that it was no longer time to play games and we had to actually enforcing U.N. resolutions.
|
SO, not only is our conservative president the liberator of all oppressed peoples around the world, he's also now the military enforcement arm of the United Nations.....! This guy is quite the internationalist!!!
There are, however, a few flaws in the latter argument:
- Ask East Timor and the people of the Western Sahara what good UN resolutions do you when those who were/are occupying you are allied with the United States (namely Indonesia and Morocco).
- Another one of our allies, Turkey, still stands in violation of UN resolutions 353 and 354, which call for them to pull their troops out of Cyprus. No dice there.
- Our largest recipient of military aid, Israel, is in violation of countless UN resolutions. Now you can say most of them are bullshit, maybe even anti-semetic, but then ALL UN resolutions (like bills in our own congress) have a bit of politicized spice to them. If the UN is flawed, why have we become the thugs that enforce their resolutions...? I'm also assuming we'll be dealing with these countries shortly, right Ronnie...?
- OOH!! HERE'S THE CLINCHER!!! The UN was never even allowed to vote on the American invasion of Iraq!! WHY? Because they probably would've voted against it! WOW! So while we're enforcing resolutions and such, we simultaneously chastize the UN for being "irrelevant" and useless. Classy.
I see another problem here. In your own words, you said " After 9/11 it was clear that it was no longer time to play games and we had to actually enforcing U.N. resolutions." But wait.....that wasn't why we invaded Iraq, right Ronnie? Your arguments about freeing enslaved people, eliminating a dictator (a dictator that got along prety well with Reagan and Rumsfeld, but a dictator either way), enforcing the sanctity of UN resolutions, etc. etc.....these arguments arev all well and good. However, they WERE NOT the premise for war in Iraq, and they WERE NOT the way the war was packaged and sold to the American people.
Iraq supposedly had WMD. In fact, they were at least "stockpiling" chemical weapons, right? Wait, wait, what about the "45 minute" attack I kept hearing about? Ya know, the one in the British dossier that was later used by Colin Powell while addressing that oh-so-sacred institution, the UN....? Look at popular polls. A high proportion of Americans believed, and still believe, that Saddam was behind 9/11. Now what, or who, might've lead them to believe that, huh?
In your own words, you said that after 9/11, the atmosphere changed, and it was time to clean house on our enemies (and ex-employees apparently). And clearly, prior to 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and the other rotten neo-cons who fill this administration thought the same way. And in the process, in their (and your) drive to use 9/11 as an excuse to deal with old problems, the president you voted for deliberately mislead the American people. God bless it.