January 19, 2004

Wait, You Want Support Now? I Think Not.

POST #    709

First, the U.S. Government attacks Iraq, a sovereign nation, with little international support, all in the quest for "weapons of mass destruction." Then, they don't find those weapons, but they depose a nasty leader. Now, the U.S. is in charge of running Iraq, but is asking the United Nations for support in establishing a government. You're kidding me, right? You go into Iraq without the support of the United Nations and now you want their help? If I were the U.N. or Kofi Annan, I would just have a good hearty laugh. If you're going to depose a government without international support, don't ask for their support after the war.

Dubbya has two options, pull out of Iraq or suck it up and stick it to the taxpayer. Wait, he's already sticking it to us, so that should read, "stick it to the taxpayer some more."

- NY Times: U.N. Pressed to Send Team to Iraq to Aid Political Transition

Posted by tien mao in Rants at 5:34 PM

 

 

Can a "sovereign nation" never be legitimately attacked? Hitler's Germany was pretty sovereign and they damn sure tried to be a nation (in the true sense of the word).

Posted by: JK at January 19, 2004 5:38 PM

a sovereign nation that was just minding it's own business. weapons of mass destruction and all.

i don't recall an overt act of aggression to provoke the most recent war in iraq. at least in the first war, they threatened our precious oil supply.

hitler seemed to threaten/invade/occupy other nations with acts of war, no?

Posted by: tien at January 19, 2004 5:53 PM

Actually all the resolutions that weren't enforced are a pretty good start. Remember the last 12 years? Saddam kicking out the UN inspectors countless times. Bill Clinton/Al Gore/Madeline Albright all saying that Saddam had WMD's. That was back in 1998! Also haven't the people of Iraq noticed a big difference now that Saddam is gone? They can actually criticize the US and others and not worry about being murdered/imprisoned/threatened? Just a counterpoint!:)

Posted by: yep at January 20, 2004 2:32 AM

I wouldn't mind as much if we were given a reasonable explanation for the war. Pretending that Saddam is "evil" and that we're defending some universal "good" is bull. Pretending to look for WMD's that you never knew existed isn't a valid reason.

If you want control over your oil resourses and to line the pockets of your business cohorts while getting revenge on the guy that threatened your father, just say that. Honesty goes a long way. Misdirection leads to bitterness. Just say, "It's my army, and despite the advice of the UN, I want to satisfy my personal agendas." What are we gonna do - not pay taxes next year? Leave the country? We accidentally elected him - so he gets to do what he wants.

Posted by: Maine at January 20, 2004 10:39 AM

well said maine, well said. i'm not even going to elaborate. i was thinking about it, but i don't need to.

Posted by: tien at January 20, 2004 11:35 AM

I think its pretty silly for us to sit here and speculate all of these things we are slamming Bush for. I'm not for him or against him. I think the only things we can definitively say he/the administration is guilty of relative to this topic is that they haven't communicated very well with the American public on this issue. If Bush came out and admitted all of these things he is being charged of, then I would say "string him up." But, on the off chance that one of us works for the CIA, is a high ranking member of the U.S. military or U.S. administration, or George Bush himself, none of us knows for sure what the hell we are talking about on this issue, including me. So lets refrain from all the mudslinging. Just say he's stupid or not well-spoken, something we all KNOW to be true.

Posted by: Michael at January 20, 2004 7:19 PM

that works too - calling him stupid. i'm not sure i want a stupid man as president.

Posted by: tien at January 20, 2004 9:08 PM

Post a comment

 




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
Powered by Movable Type