Sure, talk bad about the art I posted...have you not noticed, though - it has gotten more attention than my attempts to discuss French anti-semitism "now and then." Nobody ever wants to hear from the expert. Intimidation, I guess.
Howdy Batman...long time no debate. You make some very good points. I think the proposed action against Iraq has been a learning experience for all involved in the debate. That fringe sentiment is in their foreign service department. Pretty scary when a diplomat says those kind of things. I never said to totally blow off the UN. I have stated time and again that given France's position within the UN some motives in regard to the Middle East are suspect. I believe in consulting our friends...but have never and will never be in favor of playing a game of "mother may I" with the UN. From the very beginning I have remained consistent in my opinion that the President should obtain a Congressional resolution prior to any attack. I have pointed out instances where that has not happened in the past. But that which is legal is not always the appropriate course of action. Believe me...the Refman administration would never go to war without having a formal resolution from Congress. I have always liked G.W. Bush...I have not always been the world's biggest Cheney fan. In fact, I took a lot of flack from my conservative friends when I expressed disappointment at Cheney being named as Bush's running mate. Please note that many of the legislators will view this much differently from certain UN member states. This is because some legislators (see Lieberman) show a very hawkish stance on the Middle East due to their allegiance to the state of Israel. I'm NOT saying that Bush should act without them. I am just making an interesting aside. I have always maintained that Bush should get a formal Congressional resolution. Please do. I'll even buy ya the Pepto. Good post. I don't necessarily agree with it...but a good post nonetheless.
Batman -- The administration feels it necessary to get approval from Congress for political reasons. My point is that Congressional approval was already granted in the days following Sept. 11th when Congress said the administration had its full support in dealing with terrorists and the nations that harbor/support them.
UN thoughts for today: The best reason that the Bush Admin can come up with for attacking Iraq is that they are not following the post Gulf War UN resolutions. The fact that the majority of the UN reps are against the US unilaterally (Great Britian as an ally does not count since they are just band wagoning) attacking Iraq (that ever emerging threat) is a non-issue for the Bush Admin. Who cares what those peace loving blubberheads think anyway? Maybe if this whole Irag thing does not work out for Bush Jr, he can go down to Panama and militarily extract their elected leader to quell his freedy frenzy. It worked for his dad. The UN won't like it so screw'em. We the God Fearing Unites States of America and you had better not mess with us (or think about messing with us or have us think you are thinking about messing with us). Now back to regularly scheduled thread musings ...
This is the funniest thing I've heard all day. Doesn't count. HA!!!!! Tell ya what oh arbitor of all thing that do and do not count...why don't you ask the British soldiers who will be there when the bullets start flying if their alliance counts? Ask their mothers if it counts? Your statement is ridiculous.
I am glad you are not humor impaired. Maybe the main point I was trying to make was too subtle for you. On one hand, Bush Jr is using the violations of UN resolutions as an excuse to raze Iraq. On the other hand, Bush Jr does not care what the UN body thinks wrt the US's virtually unilateral invasion of Iraq to oust its leader.
I understood your main point...what you said about the British not counting was too ridiculous to pass without comment though.
