Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

nimh - That's a disingenuous argument. The document clearly gives authority to member states--not a specified group thereof--to do whatever necessary to force Iraq into line. I believe the language was crafted that way to show Saddam that he needed to fear retalliation from every front. Your argument would render the document meaningless. Why write that the resolution grants authority if what you mean is that member states must come back to the UN to get that authority?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Quote:
Right or Wrong, I wouldn't want our leaders to do anything that even smelled like a concession right now.

This is another example of how stupid American "pride" gets in the way of logic. Think about what the above quote says. "Right or wrong."
Gee....(says the resident of Munchen in 1944), I don't care that just outside the city thousands of Jews are being killed, I have to stand by my country because I'm proud of it!" Sad to see the "good German" phenomenon is alive and well.

(Looking past the blatant Ad Hominem attack. Rolling Eyes

) Bob: where did you get the American "pride" nonsense in that statement? This has nothing to do with pride and has everything to do with credibility. Conceding to terrorist demands, in my opinion, promotes terrorism. Idea

Demonstrating resolve sends the message that terrorists will not dissuade us from doing what we believe is right. Idea

I chose my words to address the current situation without getting bogged down in the blame game. Are you incapable of disagreeing without pretending you don't understand my point? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

"what we believe is right."

and therein lies the rub

0 Replies

The point you seem to have made its that our rightness or wrongness has no bearing on the situation. Instead we should just continue with what we are doing. This is stupid American arrogance at its finest. One of the facets of a mature intellect is its willingness to learn from mistakes and change course of neccesary.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
"what we believe is right."

and therein lies the rub

Would you have us do what we believe is wrong? Confused

0 Replies

That seems to be the complementary path in the "my country wrong or right" philosophy you are espousing.

0 Replies

Well done Dys. That is certainly a point worthy of contention, providing you are referring to how we should proceed from here. Ultimately, I think that is the most important consideration in choosing our next President.

I can't be any clearer Bob... Go ahead and choose not to get it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Occom Bill, I got your point. To pull out of Iraq would send many negative messages to the world (although I think it could send some positive messages as well, but not nearly as many).

I'm not comfortable with the homeland defense program, because it undermines the laws and also the rights we all have to live our lives as we choose (of course, as long as we aren't harming anyone else, for the most part). There's something called 'Due Process' regarding prosecution, and that starts with the warrent to search a home... and even then, spying on people through phone taps and PC hacking aren't considered credible evidense to use against the suspect. It reminded me of stories I've heard (from the victims) about the BATF raiding people's homes based on vague, and sometimes incorrect, accusations... and at times they would raid the wrong home... but they wouldn't find out until after they shot the people there.

0 Replies

But according to the far righties..if they got shot, they must have been guilty of something. I seem to recall Ed Meese saying something similar....

0 Replies

If they had been burned to a crisp we could say Reno was in charge, I believe she is a lefty.

0 Replies

from my simple mindedness I would offer that Ruby Ridge was a far greater DOJ-FBI fubar than Waco.

0 Replies

To each his own fubar.

0 Replies

although, the Denver Police Dept in conjunction with the FBI-DOJ putting the Quakers in Denver on the subversive activities/terrorist list seems to be pushing the envelope.

0 Replies

Yup! I'm sure I'll get my mug in the files, since I will be protesting fred Phelps on the 25th.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

nimh - That's a disingenuous argument. The document clearly gives authority to member states--not a specified group thereof--to do whatever necessary to force Iraq into line. I believe the language was crafted that way to show Saddam that he needed to fear retalliation from every front. Your argument would render the document meaningless. Why write that the resolution grants authority if what you mean is that member states must come back to the UN to get that authority?

The UN, as an apparatus, doesnt have much in the ways of "necessary means" to force any country to anything. The UN - ie, the collective of world countries - comes together, passes a resolution laying down the latest rule, and attributes the authority for follow-up action on the matter to the only actors available - themselves. Hence, the resolution authorizes the member states to take further action when necessary. Not any one or two of its member states. You havent replied what you would think if Russia and China together invoked a UN resolution as the legal ground for a war they together decided to wage on, say, Israel (or, I dunno, India), which neither you, nor your government, nor the majority of states on the UN Security Council, nor the head and functionaries of the UN, consider to contain the legimition they claim.

It would be naive to state that any one or two member states can deem itself authorized to decide what action exactly a UN resolution invoked when defining "all necessary means", by the fact alone that the majority of member states did not consider war a "necessary means" at that point in time. Basically, here you have a UN resolution calling for the UN's member states to do whatever is necessary, and you have a small minority of some three countries on the Security Council saying that, right now, war is necessary as means to force Iraq to oblige - and all the others saying that it's not.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Two days after 9/11 Commercial Aviation was reopened across the country. Contrary to the Globe's assertions there was no "special permission" required to fly as of 9/13 at 11am EST. They were free to fly anywhere they chose to.

Here's an aside (I know the discussion has moved on), still... I'm not sure you are correct there, Fishin'. I know what happened to international flights here because I had tickets to fly to the UK on 9/11/01 on the Seattle to London run. The FCC wouldn't let that flight leave the country until 9/17/01 (we didn't get out until a day later). There may have been some domestic flights, but I question whether regular international flights resumed as you say.

0 Replies

I wonder what security measures were in place for the binLaden family, she says, tongue firmly planted in cheek. Did they have to wait in long lines and get frisked? were they asked if anyone packed their luggage?
I thought not.
Special treatment, which was the initial point, was granted to the bin Ladens.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You havent replied what you would think if Russia and China together invoked a UN resolution as the legal ground for a war they together decided to wage on, say, Israel (or, I dunno, India)...

Show me the resolution that authorizes them to take such action. Thanks.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

I wonder what security measures were in place for the binLaden family, she says, tongue firmly planted in cheek. Did they have to wait in long lines and get frisked? were they asked if anyone packed their luggage?
I thought not.
Special treatment, which was the initial point, was granted to the bin Ladens.

Suzy: from this I gather you are trying to say something... I just don't know what...?

0 Replies

I realize that we are supposed to stop something from the picture but I see the same posts concerning the same topics, I guess I interpreted the message wrong.

In light of that...

The reason John Kerry voted no on the 87 billion (right number?) for Iraq and Afghanistan was because of the thing about the bids and Haliburton that was included in the bill. a lot of times while a congressmen or senator likes a bill there are things included in it that would make it impossible for he/she to vote for it. Which is why Kerry was first going to vote for it and then not going to vote for as Cheney said in his speech.

(I don't have all the specifics but I am sure that it can be searched out by anyone that wants to)

As for the thing about bin laden family getting to get out of town fast, to me that only makes sense for safety reasons.

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know