UnuMundo:
You’ve asserted something as a statistic. Now, would you be so kind as to provide links to the statistics that led you to your conclusion?
p.s. to Estilicon:
Thanks for both the link (I love those old “Magic 8-Ball” toys!) and for the great saying, “I have so much smoking gun evidence in my room that my mother suspected I was smoking Pot.”
Are you actually saying Bush doesn’t want to attack Iraq???
For those of you who actually think it matters whether the U.S. adheres to its obligations under international law, you might find the following interesting. The rest of you may also find it interesting. (Scroll down the page a bit; it’s a .pdf file.)
“Attacking Iraq, Subverting International Law”
http://www.nlg.org/news/news.htm
(And yes, I’m aware that the National Lawyers Guild leans rather heavily to the left. If you think this is a problem, I challenge you to find a legal source which effectively proves the opposite point.)
As you will have realized when you read the earlier posts, Toaster and i had quite an exchange on this issue.
I think what it came down to in the end was really a question of semantics; i was happy enough to use the term “want,” believing that it was reasonable given my interpretation of Bush’s overall political position. Toaster, on the other hand, was inclined to believe that Bush feels that the US “needs” to go to war with Iraq to secure peace and security for the US and the world.
I respectfully disagree with this interpretation, although i concede that Bush might really feel this to be the case. I think that if “need” comes into the equation at all, it’s more a case that Bush “needs” to invade Iraq to keep attention on issues of foreign policy and terrorism, rather than on America’s sagging economy and the massive tax cut for the rich that will do little to help get it going again. If people have the danger of Saddam thrown in their face every day, they might be willing to overlook the fact that they have no job, or that their 401k has suddenly disappeared in a cloud of corporate smoke.
That’s just my take, anyway.
Eva,
Good link. While the NLG is quite left, as you suggest (something i have no problem with, anyway), it seemed to me that the language of the U.N. Charter regarding the use of force is rather clear and unambiguous.
Those who support America going alone (or with a few allies) in a war on Iraq are certainly free to argue that there is some moral, strategic, practical, or self-interested reason that the US should invade without UN Security Council approval. But they will find it very difficult to argue that such an action is permissible under the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory.
wow…that’s what I love about this board. You can have a flaming argument with another poster and end up defending that person.
Wish the real world were more like that. Maybe it has something to do with having the time to think while composing a reply (granted, some posters don’t, but that’s another thread…)
thanks, mhendo!
[hyperbole]
That said, I still have a gripe with people of BOTH political persuasions whose entire viewpoint starts with either 1) Bush is God, or 2) Bush is Satan…totally unsupported with any facts in either case…and then use THAT viewpoint to “justify” their further arguments about Bush (and his administration).
[/end hyperbole]
I wish more people were like me, whose logic and arguments always stem from thoughful, considered positions…
[ok, ok…/hyperbole now…]