any member of the security council can enforce a un
resolution. it does not have to be artorized in the
resolution.
so on one hand the iragis can deal with random
terrorist bombings or they could have stayed with
government santioned rape, torue, mass murder. well
that is a black and white decision to me.
"the constitution is not a suicide pack." some one in
high office said that. presidents from washington on
have had to thred where bush has tread. that includes
lincoln and roosevelt to name two. oh, some of the
history of things those two did.
imho it is not such cut and dried decisions that have
been made. the fact that you had to present more than
one argument to answer the question is proof thereof.
the only fact that is sure is that lincoln and
roosevelt could not have won their respective wars had
they had hafe as much non-cooperation during their
day. i can just imagine how the press would have
described 7000 lost on iwo jima alone. the d day
invasion would have been described as a disaster by
todays press. bull run by todays standards would have
been the end of the union.
i am happy that i do not have to make the decisions
being made daily. i am glad most of you have nothing
to do with the decisions too. all we have to do is sit
back and second guess. thats as close as i want to be
to the decisions.
--- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> Whether the Iraqis are better off is a tough call;
> they may (or may not,
> some would argue) have greater civil liberties, but
> their lives may be
> in greater immediate danger than they were under
> Hussein.
>
> On the opposite side of that coin, many would argue
> that we in the US
> are safer, but have had our civil liberties eroded.
> It was said in the
> immediate post 9/11 period that the terrorists
> wanted to destroy the
> American (read US) way of life, and they have made a
> start toward that,
> IMHO.
>
> As I read UN Resolution 1441, it doesn't explicitly
> give member states
> of the UN permission to undertake unilateral
> military action against
> Iraq. That does seem to be permissible under UN
> resolutions 678 and
> 687, which were signed in 1990 and 1991,
> respectively.
>
> My point is that the armed forces presently engaged
> as coalition
> partners do not wear UN uniforms, and as such are
> not formally
> recognized as UN forces.
>
> Kendall
>
> An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> redundant!)
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
> unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
> Therefore, all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man.
>
> -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq war.
>
> actually resolution 1441 passed without desent,
> but,
> then when it got time to actually follow through,
> then
> the germans, french, and russians backpeddled and
> would not follow through. 1441 gave any member
> nation
> the right to enforce it. the u.s. and the brits with
> a
> few more did exactly that.
> it appears that the intelligence worldwide was
> wrong
> on lagre amounts of weapons of mass destruction
> unless
> you believe that ranking iragi general that says
> they
> flew them to syria. the media is ignoring him. i'd
> guess some of you have heard nothing about him up to
> just this email. but, either way i'll ask the
> question. do you think iragis are better off now
> than
> before the invasion? your honest answer should
> pretty
> well tell you if the war is right or wrong. don't
> wealsel out, they are either better off without
> saddam
> or they were better off with him.
>
> --- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Let me send this again, so the link stays intact!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kendall David Corbett
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:59 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: dental question
> >
> > Anthony,
> >
> > President Bush tried to get UN approval for the
> war
> > in Iraq, and was
> > turned down. He then formed a coalition of
> partner
> > nations for the war,
> > which included the US, England, Australia, Canada,
> > and a few others that
> > I can't recall right now.
> >
> > This is a link to an article in the Washington
> Post
> > from August of 2002
> > that talks about members of the present President
> > Bush's administration
> > saying that the President didn't even need
> > Congressional approval for
> > the present Iraq war, since Congress had approved
> > the use of military
> > force in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the
> > Kuwaiti government made
> > a formal request for help.
> >
> >
>
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kendall
> >
> > An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> > redundant!)
> >
> > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> the
> > unreasonable one
> > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
> > Therefore, all
> > progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> >
> > -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Arnold
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:29 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: dental question
> >
> > I know I should have paid more attention back in
> > school when we were
> > covering this, but does the President of the
> United
> > States have to win
> > approval from the UN before going into places like
> > Iraq or Iran? Does
> > he
> > only need congress's?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anthony
> > Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Of
> > ken barber
> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:35 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: dental question
> >
> > you guys would never admit it, but, you know i
> have
> > a
> > point. someone can pass gass in a room full of
> > democrats and bush will be blamed for the stench.
> >
> > --- Mike Collis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Now, now, Ken!!! Don't get testy. LOL You're
> our
> > > favorite curmudgeon!!!
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > > ken barber
> > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:56 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: dental question
> > >
> > > george dubya bush. and it is his fault that you
> > did
> > > not know that too.
> > >
> > > --- Anthony Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > May I ask you who's dubya?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Anthony
> > > > Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
