Originally Posted by Bluesman

We're not going through this again with anybody, friend, especially not you. But you should note that most of us are correct in thinking that President Bush sees the matter clearly, and like us, he believes that no extra-national body, particularly one as corrupt and feckless as the UN, should have any say at all in the matter of US national security.

You don't know who I am, but yeah I think we should go through it again, since there seem to be broad misconceptions about why we went to war in Iraq, and since we are still there, it should be debated.


You want to peddle the line that any non-UN-sanctioned action is somehow illegal, that's fine, you believe what you will. But the rest of us choose to see that as an outrageous renunciation of our national sovereignty, suitable only for bed-wetting internationalists that are too weak to stand up for their own
country's best interests.


What is the purpose of the UN if not to determine what actions are legal or illegal? Bush I made a big deal out of getting a resolution that specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq, and Bush II based his entire case internationally for invading Iraq on the violated UN resolutions. At the very least an understanding of the mechanisms of international law (yes that dirty phrase) is in order if you are going to base your case on violations of said international law. You cannot go in guns ablazing as the lone sheriff, to protect "national interests" if the international community (Ohhh another dirty phrase) does not support your actions; just ask Saddam.

As to the rest of your posts, well, I've settled the matter to my own satisfaction, and your 'points', such as they are, leave me unconvinced that you have much of a case.