Actually you failed to show anything, other than what constitutes a poor analogy and your blind allegiance to Bush.
International Law is no a static set of rules in some book. It is perfectly justified under so-called 'international law' to remove a genocidal regime. A doctrine that the UN recognizes, btw. So we certainly could have removed Saddam in GW1 under 'international law.' Further, there is no need to a 'global consensus' for an action to be legal - take our intervention in Bosnia, for example, which had neither Security Council nor general assembly support. Regardless of 'global opinion' if we feel something is justified, then it would be silly to ignore it. OK Yup. Understood. My point is that the UN was unlikely to intervene in Iran regardless. As with AndyMoon I'll agree I'm not saying Bush couldn't have done this better.
Sorry - I meant to say international pacts/alliances, as in the pact Bush Sr. had with the allies of GW1. He was not supposed to occupy Iraq - and so he did not. The reference was intended to illuminate that Bush again ignored his father's advice when he decided that he did not care what the UN said.
Well, I for one would not advocate that jr is anywhere close to as smart or experienced as sr. Remember sr was a legislator, an ambassador to China and the UN, head of the CIA, and a VP BEFORE he was President. Jr could never come close to that, and never had the opportunity to develop relationships as Sr did. Not that it excuses his complete failure in bringing allies to the table. Certainly it does not. My point is simply that he did bring in allies such as NATO members Italy and the UK. However, I recognize that according to who is speaking this may, or may not be enough. As I pointed out earlier, some say war is never legitimate. Some say it must only be through the UN. Some say it must be some (vague) coalition and not unilateral. I have no idea why a coalition involving major countries like the US, UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, and Australia is not major ENOUGH. But some say it isn't. I disagree that the UN is the only legitimate arbiter because it structurally is not built to deal with many situations, such as Bosnia, where Russia blocked Security Council action because they are culturally linked with Serbia (Orthodox religion). Hence, the UN failing to agree on an action makes it neither immoral nor illegal to act in their absence. Definitely agree its better to have a world consesus/UN backing/NATO backing/dali lama backing first, but that is not a precondition for action IMO.
My opinion is that Bush should have used Saddam's evilness as the reason to go into Iraq, and not WMD, which I doubted were there the whole time. Saddam performed cruel acts upon the Kurds, and needed punishment for it. However, I think if Bush had of been more patient he could have gotten more global support for the effort to make Iraq a swift war instead of what we have today. I honestly don't know who I support on millitary issues, but I do like Kerry's idea of doubling special forces. 3 debates and I haven't made up my mind. The chimp or Herman Munster.
Kerry's idea of doubling sounds a like a draft... even another form of a "backdoor" draft. Or by doubling here... where else will be cut? Where will he get these extra forces? The U.N.?
He'll spend whatever it takes. You're for spending whatever it takes on our security, aren't you? Keep D&D Civil!!
basso: I just have to say, after all these months, your constant, smirking use of "iRaq" has gone from dumbfounding to demeaning. I understand that the country's name reminds you of the Mac brand, but Jesus dude, 1,000 Americans have died there and a hell of a lot more Iraqis have died there too. Whether or not you support the war, whatever your cause, you're smirking at a country where Americans and Iraqis currently die every day. I think serious people on both sides of the issue would agree with me when I say it's gross.
Who cares how he capitalizes that word. It doesn't make a difference as to whether more or less people die there.
He's (awkwardly) trying to make a joke out of it and he's been doing it for months. All I'm saying is it's not funny and it makes it hard to take his occasional serious takes on the situation seriously.
And tax us all the more? I'm for using what resources we already have at our disposal, finishing the job, and withdrawing troops as the situation gets handed to the Iraqi government. Spend the money already committed to it NOW. Finish. No more taxes, please. If Kerry gets in... watch your pocketbooks.
