Right, which pounds your so-called logical premise into dust.
For the record, Clinton did try to take out Osama, but was unable, but not for lack of trying. Bush put it on the back burner until 9/11, apparently not believing it to be important.
I don’t understand this. Are you saying it’s better for U.S. soldiers to die going after Saddam, who had NO connection to 9/11, than going after Osama, who was clearly responsible for 9/11?
How would that help matters? It’s a testiment to the pragmatism of the U.N. that they are willing to do what’s in the best interest of everyone, rather than be spiteful and vindictive. We can’t undo the damage Bush has done; the only thing left is to try to take lemons and make lemonade.
Sorry, New Isk, but I wasn’t really making any cogent comment on post-modernism as a cultural context. It was really a derisive and sarcastic comment upon your “syllogism”, which bears no resemblance to logic, or at least not as it is known on this planet. Sorry if you misunderstood.
(Shit, now I feel like I just drop-kicked a puppy through the goal-posts…)
Even if we accept your premises, there is no logical relationship between them and the conclusion. The removal of S.H. changed the facts on the ground. The U.N. is therefore responding to the new circumstances. It can’t change what has already happened, so it needs to deal with the reality of putting a new government in place.
I refer you to your own post. I’m sorry, if you think what you posted was ‘logic’ then clearly you are not equipped to debate anything in a logical fashion so I’m not going to waste my time ‘proving’ a self-evidently absurd assertion is self-evidently absurd.
You should have read it before making an absurd declaration like that:
From the text of the resolution (I found it url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1086689012982]here
The resolution clearly admits that the US is currently the occupying power.
Let’s see how that works with elucidator’s example:
Major premise: No rebuilding of structure without fire. Minor premise: No fire without arson. Conclusion: unanimous approval of rebuilding = unanimous approval of arson.
Ermm . . . this is more irony, right? Bush already transferred power from Hussein to himself, on his own initiative, without the UN’s authorization. All the UN can do now is endorse the transfer of power from the Coalition (i.e., the Bush Admin) to a new Iraqi government . . . or not endorse it.
Look, never mind who commands the occupying troops. How much purely political autonomy is the new government to have? For instance, what happens if they decide they want to kick out Halliburton and reclaim control over Iraq’s oilfields and their revenues?
The UN resolution says that sovereignty should be returned to the Iraqis; and that should be done expeditiously and judiciously. The UN support for continued maintenance of foreign forces in Iraq is based on the realization that without a strong, well-coordinated military the country would fall further into chaos. Nothing there is a ringing endorsement of Bush or an admission what the US did there a year ago, in spite of international objection, was right.
During the G8 summit Bush came up short when wanted to get debt relief for Iraq, and his proposed use of NATO forces was also rebuffed. So there doesn’t seem to be any ground swell of international support for Bush. What is being recognized by the UN members is what the logical next steps are, not a rally behind US’ cause.
Of course, there does seem to be a concerted effort by the administration to extrapolate any kind of “yea” vote at the UN to mean that its members are beginning to support US’ actions. I am not sure whether that’s wishful thinking, or is it more of their propaganda which is force-fed to us.
Here are the relevant paragraphs. Also, apparently my link above is cookie-dependent and doesn’t work, try going here and selecting the resolution (it’s 1546, currently the top link).
May I ask, who is the rebuilder here? The same person as an arsonist, no?
The proper comparison is a virtuous citizen taking law into his own hands, arresting a crook, scattering crook’s henchmen and presenting corrupt and impotent city fathers (UN) with a new reality, in the face of which they have no choice but to approve.
No “ringing endorsement” of Bush by UN is ever to be expected, of course. More impotent whining is to be expected.
So, they “support for continued maintenance of foreign forces in Iraq” but “rebuff” proposed use of NATO forces? Is that UN way of saying “go on doing what you were doing”?
I don’t understand your point about “impotent whining” is to be expected. If what UN does is so inconsequential to you, why weigh-in on the importance of the unanimity of the vote?
Secondly, this isn’t their way of saying “keep doing what you’re doing.” It is them saying we agree that you need to get the hell out of there, since you brought up the topic in the UN. And, no, this is your mess, YOU clean it up. We aren’t sending moeny nor troops to do what you shouldn’t have done in the first place.
