That’s what Steven Colbert recommends. Once Cananda falls the bears will target us.
It’s the ursine domino thoery.
Amen brother Thomas.
So, uh, I guess no one actually wants to address (or defend) the perfidy of Peter King (and his party)?
[del]Bricker?.. [/del]Bueller?.. Bueller?..Bueller?
CMC fnord!
So apparently this liberal outrage against statements that aren’t true is a sort of on-again, off-again sort of thing?
You don’t have a cite for the statement that the UN disapproved of our invasion, by chance? (I know the Secretary-General did, personally, but the Secretary-General is not the United Nations, and has no power whatsoever to express the sense of the United Nations.)
The UN speaks through its resolutions. Security Council Resolution 678 gives all UN Member States the authority to apply “…all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
The charter for the United Nations, in Articles 39-42 et seq., gives the Security Council the jurisdiction to find the war was illegal. They have not done so.
So when you said the UN disapproves of the invasion – you were, what, just joking?
Or perhaps you were serious, and I just posted too soon to let the liberal commentators on this board rise up in one voice to declare their outrage at your “inaccurate” statement.
What the hell are you talking about? Is there are argument hidden in this statement somewhere? Make it plainly, and I’ll answer. I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Wel, that’s nice. Let us examine Resolution 660 (it’s short):
Since driving Iraq from Kuwait had nothing to do with this, and since the US did not invade to restore international peace or security, it doesn’t apply.
Also, the measuring stick by which one determines if the UNSC approves of something or not is whether the UNSC votes to approve something or not. When did they vote to approve America’s conquest of Iraq?
That couldn’t possibly be because the two main actors in the Iraq War, the US and UK, are permanent members of the security council and have veto power?
So then there was a Security Council resolution, but it failed on that basis?
Even if that were true, cosmodan’s statement is false. ("…even though the UN disapporved (sic) of our invasion.")
And of course, despite the seething hatred that the left has for false statements, it turns out that this particular false statement was made on an odd-numbered day of an even-numbered month during a time when the Santa Ana winds are quiescent, which means it’s exempt from criticism. Or something like that, I imagine. Probably it was rude of me to even mention it. Hey, cosmodan, sorry for pointing out your “inaccurate” statement, there, buddy. I didn’t remember the Santa Ana wind exemption in time.
But guess what? The Security Council did NOT almost pass a resolution except for the vetoes of the US and UK. So the basis for saying the UN was opposed to the invasion is… is… um…
Wait, wait, I’m sure it’ll come to you.
Sez you.
In fact, that’s exactly what the United States did.
Who the fuck asked if they approved it? When was that asserted?
The statement made was that they disapproved it. You, knowing that this is simply untrue, are subtly seeking to change the statement to, “Well, they may not have disapproved it, but they sure didn’t explicitly approve it, either!!”
But rather than just forthrightly make that statement, you seek to hide your goalpost switch.
But, olley-olley-oxen-free, I see you!
The UN only keeps an archive of resolutions which are adopted, as far as I can tell. In any case, why would anyone bother to introduce such a resolution, given that the UK and/or US could automatically veto it?
Don’t know. Don’t care.
cosmodan claims the UN disapproved the invasion.
I point out that this is an untrue statement.
You point out that the US and UK have veto power over the UNSC.
Fine, I say, and did that happen?
Uh, dunno, you say, but it COULD have, and even if it didn’t, they would have vetoed such a resolution anyway, so why bother?
:rolleyes:
Do you know what argument ad ignoratium is?
Do you see how the effort has been to subtly (and not so subtly) shift the argument away from the false claim?
No one has said, “Yeah, ok, that one’s just not true.” Instead, the dance begins, the Dance of the Sugar Plum Goalposts.
Looking at his actual quote, it doesn’t appear to say anything about the Security Council. Kofi Annan certainly disapproved of the invasion, and was the de jure spokesman for the UN at the time.
It is certainly not true that the Security Council adopted a resolution condemning or otherwise opposing the invasion of Iraq.
Is it not the case that a resolution was never introduced because it was well-known that it wouldn’t have passed?
Well, it might be, but as Bricker rightly points out, it’s not fair to claim if we don’t know.
You did with your bizarro logic that if they don’t declare something illegal, they approve of it. I countered with the fact that approval consisting of voting their approval. That didn’t happen. Therefore, they don’t approve.
Nonsense. They didn’t vote to approve it, so it wasn’t approved. You’re the one trying to dance. I’m the one aware that the head cheese of the UN said it was illegal as per the UN charter. A quick google search will reveal this to you as well. After that you’ll have to come up with a new way to defend the Republicans.
I’m not switching anything. The UNSC did not vote its approval of the US conquest of Iraq, so they didn’t approve of it. You’re the one trying to redefine approval as ‘not saying it’s illegal’.
You see what you want to see.
Then he should have said that Kofi Annan disapproved of it. But of course that would have taken the bite out of things. Kofi Annan doesn’t get to decide, unilaterally, what the UN disapproves of.
Maybe. I have no idea.
What I do know is that you can’t say, “The UN disapproved of our invasion,” and then as proof offer the fact that they would have introduced a resolution against it, but knowing it wouldn’t pass, they didn’t.
You… you DO see that, right?
When did I say that? Quote the post, please.
Again, quote the post. Where did I say it was approved?
Does the President get to decide unilaterally what the United States approves of?
No, but as the sole head of one of three co-equal branches of government, he has considerably more ability to do that than Kofi Annan does as Sec-Gen. The President is bound by law, and his personal pronouncements of what the country approves of are not binding in any way. He may say that the United States disapproves of a particular nation’s actions, but his ability to make that stick as a matter of policy is limited to what the law permits him to do.
So even if the Sec-Gen had precisely identical powers to the US President, he couldn’t be said to express the disapproval of the United Nations without a resolution backing him up.