Ah, sure. I was just skimming and didn’t realize this was already a “precision of language” argument.
IMHO (and again, just skimming) you’re technically correct – as Hermes from Futurama says, the best kind of correct. And I’m not about to get involved in anything more than that concerning the justification/impetus/intent of the war.
There was going to be such a resolution of approval. On Friday, Bush said he was going to press the point, get “everybody’s cards on the table”. Apparently, under the impression that he would win such approval. By Monday, he realized that he already had such approval, yessireebob, it was right there. Well, sorta kinda. In a remarkable display of grace, he decided not to press for the second resolution, since he didn’t really need it anyway, so what the heck.
Either that, or somebody on the White House staff could count, and told him he would lose. I’m thinking it was the latter of the two. However, since I do not have an affidavit signed by God Almighty, and countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel, this does not count as “proof”.
Me, I’m planning on getting a parrot, teach him to say over and over “Liberal hypocrisy! Liberal hypocrisy!” Parrot should have a name. Any suggestions?
How about this:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/17/eng20030317_113416.shtml
Chirac expressly said that France would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
For further reading, the whole saga is contained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
Who, apart from you guys, is talking about “approval?”
cosmodan said the UN DISAPPROVED the invasion. I said they didn’t. This does not magically transform into me saying they approved it.
I’d say this is some tortured logic. It’s absolutely impossible for the security counsel to disapprove because of the US’s veto power.
At least one member of the UNSC has stated their intent to veto any resolution authorizing force. If this doesn’t amount to disapproval, I don’t know what does.
Point being the exception.
We, America, pretty much made the UN happen, when we won WWII and everybody else lost. A central tenet of that organization is that aggressive war is not to be tolerated by civilized nations. Pre-emptive war is permitted under certain dire circumstances, but absent any actual threat, it is a crime against humanity. We were very serious about such crimes at the time, we were hanging Germans and Japanese for such crimes.
Bush was eager to drape the legitimacy of the UN over his war, until it became clear that no amount of browbeating and bribery would achieve that end. Which was the point of my recollection: he wanted that legitimacy, and only decided it was uneeded when it became apparent he was not going to get it.
Piont being, the default position is disapproval of agressive war. We may bemoan the emptiness of such declarations. It hardly matters how many resolutions in favor of vegetarianism the sheep pass, so long as the wolves don’t sign on.
But be that as it may, the default position would remain effective until extraordinary circumstances arise, and the UN may approve the exception. Absent that specific approval for an exception to the default position, we are entirely justified in presuming UN opposition. The American Cancer Society disapproves of cancer. If they were offered an opportunity to approve of a specific form of cancer, and did not make such an extraordinary exemption, we may safely assume that they disapprove.
Is that dispositive?
Grrr. Now I have to read what you wrote yet again.
Also, I note you haven’t withdrawn your claim that the resolutions you cited justify the invasion of Iraq, even though I showed that they did no such thing. Why not? And how are the negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait going? Is the Iraqi military still where they were in August 1990 as per the resolution used to justify (to some) the conquest of Iraq?
Are you going to try to play a stupid game of double-negatives with me? You didn’t say they approved, you just said they didn’t disapprove, right? And you determined this by deciding, on your own, that whether they declare something illegal or not is the deciding factor. As I said, it’s nonsense.
And that’s why we shouldn’t allow the bill to provide healthcare to 9/11 workers to pass.
Mods, it looks like you can close this now.
Then let me tell you what does: an actual resolution, disapproving the war.
Anything else is not the UN disapproving the war.
Maybe France would have gone through with it. maybe not – maybe we could have sent over a few cases of Jerry Lewis DVDs and smoothed the whole thing out. Doesn’t matter.
You cannot say “The UN disapproved the war,” and when called on it, mumble something about how they would have, if only.
No. It’s very simple. The UN did not take a position on the invasion. The United States chose to rely on an older resolution as authorizing their action. This doesn’t amount to approval, and it doesn’t amount to disapproval.
It’s wrong, unfactual, to say the UN disapproved the war.
It’s also wrong to say they approved the war.
They took no position on the war.
That wasn’t good enough for cosmodan, who decided to buttress his weak-ass position by claiming, contrary to fact, that the UN disapproved the war.
So when I said they didn’t disapprove, I was directly refuting cosmodan.
Subsequent posts have tried to make him right by proving that they didn’t approve it.
Another fine distinction from Bricker! Truly, you have no rival when it comes to the nanotechnology of semantics.
Yeah, I thought’d you’d go for alleged neutrality. The UN is not neutral, the UN made it clear under which conditions invasion was justified when the resolutions were made. Despite Bush’s claims, 330 did not apply so the US does not have approval.
An another note, it’s interesting to see how quickly some can lose their 9-11 Hero Cards when it turns out the cards aren’t green.
Yeah, I’m inclined to blame the Dems here. They could have voted down various amendments as they came in & passed this thing, & they chose to showboat instead.
I still think the GOP came off as douches. This appears to be reflexively playing to rural voters against urban ones. I think in this case it’s going too far.
Yes, they could have voted down various amendments, and under procedures of good faith, that would be precisely the preferred, bi-partisan approach. And an entirely valid one an the presumption that the opposition party would not use a procedure which amounts to an amendment filibuster, that is, drag out the process with amendments for so long that the time invested in the legislation becomes prohibitive. Congress does not stay in session forever, and this business, though important, is not that important.
If the Pubbies tag along on this, they allow the Dems to be credited with leading on this initiatve, and allowing Barry to have a nice Rose Garden signing for our heroes, with Pubbies standing about. Or, they could foot drag this thing until the Dems give up and move on to something else.
The procedure chosen does not allow for such dilatory amendation. It presumes a certain lack of cooperation and good will on the part of the Pubbies. In my estimation, that presumption is wholly justified, given the behavior of said Pubbies. YMMV.
elucidator, why are you talking about the substance of the OP? Don’t you realize that the conversation has now been changed to that of interpretations of the wordsmithing of old UN resolutions?
Try to keep up with the program, will ya?
I oppose it, too. I think it’s a stupid idea, once you delve 1/8 inch beyond the “let’s be compassionate” argument.
Apparently, the democrats think it’s stupid too. They set it up to fail, just in such a way that they could blame Republicans. At least the Republicans against are saying so, rather than this passive aggressive democrat shuck and jive.
Why is it stupid?
You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. You can only be compassionate with your money and effort.
9/11 workers are not better or more deserving than, say, longshoreman who may injure themselves for life on the job, or truckers who ruin their backs, or coal miners their lungs. Why are demolition, construction, and others better or more deserving than everybody else who does the exact same job but just didn’t happen to do it at the WTC site?
Why is somebody who develops chronic lung disease who happened to be in NYC on 9/11 better than somebody else with the same disease who is in LA?
Macrotechnology.
I can see why you’d try to paint this as a trivial distinction, of course. But it started because cosmodan said something blatantly untrue, and because he’s a liberal he virtually immune to anyone else calling him on it. If I were in your shoes, I’d sure try to deflect attention away from that, too.
You got a cite for that analysis being done before the attack?
Who benefits and who pays the cost?