Why is the President Lying ... again?

quote:

---

I'm not a politician, but either were a soveign nation or were not,

---

Iraq was a sovereign nation and we attacked them because they would do what we or the UN told them to do. If we find some one uncooperative and then decide it is reason to invade, perhaps we should also side in favor of the US cooperating with international bodies.

quote:

---

truly you democrats should read up on Chamberlain, don't realize the terrorists made a house call on the pentagon, killed hundreds of our leaders, and you all sit back and say we should look to the United Nations

---

How many of those terrorists were Iraqis?

quote:

---

If you don't want us to be a soverign nation, then whats the reason your an american,

---

We are and I want us to continue to be a sovereign nation. Sovereignty should not mean do as we please when we please. The next election will hopefully show that a majority of americans WANT us to cooperate with other nations. If the people want it, then as a sovereign nation we should be able to do it.

quote:

---

the senate, Congress agreed as did Mr. Kerry that going to war with Sadamn based on the intelligence was the right thing to do

---

They did not agree to go to war. They agreed that President Bush had the authority to use force as a last resort. President Bush did not do that, and he failed to fulfill his other obligations before going to war. Two trips to the UN does not a diplomatic mission make. 90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost does not a coalition make. Bush did not "stay the course" he proposed to Congress. Bush flip flopped.

quote:

---

and an unstable president that flips positions constantly, as political winds dictate, is not in our best interest, etc...

---

So why do you stay with Bush? During the debates with Gore, Bush claimed that the best path for foreign relations was to stay "muted". He was advocating that America take a lesser role in international politics. This, in no way, reflects his current position. Bush sways with the political winds as well.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-04-2004 01:14 PM

quote:

---

In Kerry's test, then, how do you prove legitimacy to the world? What if you present a lot evidence for your position, and yet the world is still unconvinced you have "proven" your case? After all, "prove" is a pretty subjective concept. Is he just saying we have to present sufficient evidence for a position from our perspective, even though other countries may disagree with our conclusion?

---

Let's look at the recent history of American Invasions. Invading Iraq in the first Gulf War passed the global test. We invaded WITH french, german, and other European troops. In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and guess what? That passed the global test as well. German troops, for a time, made up the largest non-American force. Now, we move to Iraq. We have intelligence, but nothing equating the intelligence or obvious reasons that we had before. The best we had was a picture of two or three trailers and a cryptic phone message. That was it. The UN said that wasn't good enough, but they did the next best thing, they got inspectors back into Iraq. Inspections were on going leading up to the current war. The UN did want to disarm Iraq, they just didn't feel a war was a legitimate method for doing so, nor does Kerry.

quote:

---

Now, I think if we have sufficient evidence most countries will agree with us. I'm worried, though, about countries who will disagree with us for political reasons. Do we need to prove to these countries the legitimacy of our actions before we can take action? And if so, isn't that similar to a world vote?

---

Was it legitimate for Iraq to invade Kuwait? Were we wrong for getting on Iraq's case for invading another country? Of course, because it was illegitimate. Bush understands what a global test is, he just doesn't want the US to be scrutinized like he scrutinizes other countries. We put sanctions on countries that do not pass the global test. We invade countries that do no pass the global test. Kerry proposes that we hold ourselves up to the same level of behavior as we expect from other countries.The first part of the global test is showing your own people that what you are doing is legit. Before the current war only 56% of the american people thought it was justified. 44% thought it wasn't. I wouldn't call Bush's evidence compelling at this point. Then, he goes to the international community. After 9/11 we had them by the heart strings. Still, the evidence was never strong enough to support an invasion and the world community, like 44% of americans, knew this too.However, Bush still had the right to invade but he shouldn't complain about the political backlash after the fact. This is what this election is about, whether or not Bush ran a legitimate invasion of Iraq. The global test is not something you pass before hand, it is a test you are graded on after the fact.

quote:

---

He was not just discussing invasions in general, he was discussing preemptive actions in specific. Its sort of a strain to call the first gulf war a preemptive act as Iraq had already taken Kuwait and the war was to liberate Kuwait. Those cases are well known and justified in international law. I mean what evidence would the US have to provide to make it more legit?

---

My point was that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegitimate and we attacked him for it. Saddam's invasion did not pass the global test. At least I think I said that earlier, too many Iraq threads going.Kerry said that if America were to attack preemptively then we need to make other countries understand our reason for doing so, and make them understand it's legitimacy. In my mind this does not mean passing a test before hand, but running the invasion in a way that lends legitimacy.Now, if Bush were able to show massive stockpiles of WMD's and also find strong collaborative actions between Iraq and AQ then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If America has strong evidence, and believes that this evidence is strong enough to act on then they should be able to back this up after the invasion. Not being able to back up your claims removes legitimacy after the fact. The US has very little credibility because of this, and it has harmed our ability to pursue terrorism world wide.I think Kerry really needs to flesh out his idea of what the "global test" is. He also needs to state under which conditions that he feels the US would be justified in going it alone. I think it is somewhat unfair to criticize Bush for not creating a larger coalition since the US should never wait on other countries before it protects itself. However, in cases where the reasons for invading are not well supported it is better to spread the blame and rely on world opinion.Just as a side issue, I am really getting tired of people equating the vote to "give the president the authority to use force" as a vote to actually invade. This is perhaps the largest misrepresentation that the conservatives are spitting out and I am hoping that more of the media presses them for a better representation of what the vote actually was.