senseiman said:
For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991.
Ah, I got the date wrong. My bad.
senseiman said:
None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq.
That could be a matter of interpretation. I'll look up the resolutions and post what I can find here.
senseiman said:
I say nay, laddie, as that was addressed to those who think the UN has the final word on world affairs.
senseiman said:
This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.
I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.
senseiman said:
No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.
First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.
Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.
Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.
senseiman said:
As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of.
See point three, above.
senseiman said:
This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media
junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....