Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed

mark24 writes:

quote:

---

Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded.

---

Crash made most of the relevant points about this, but what about other UN resolutions? You do realize there is a considerably long list of UN resolutions mandating certain behaviors by Israel, some of which threaten military action. The vast bulk of these resolutions has been ignored by Israel. Are you prepared to go to war against Israel to enforce them?I realize that the US has vetoed many of these resolutions, but what does that matter? The rest of the world was willing to do whatever necessary to compel Israel to certain behaviors. The fact that the US vetoes these things should demonstrate that the US is only interested in the UN so long as the UN is willing to endorse US actions. If the UN is not so willing, this administration has demonstrated that it is willing to ignore the UN.In other words, either the US will get its way or the US will get its way. The UN is irrelevant, and the fact that a UN resolution threatening force against Iraq passed is indicative of absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is what the US (or, more specifically, the Bush administration) wants.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

mark24 writes crash:

quote:

---

Holmes said Bush "rushed" to war.

---

And holmes is absolutely correct. The 12 years doesn't matter because the UN doesn't matter. The US (for years, but particularly under this administration) doesn't care what the UN does. Do you honestly believe that this war wouldn't have happened without that UN resolution?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

mark24 writes me:

quote:

---

So the UN are full of shit for threatening crap when they have no intention of supporting their resolutions, aren't they?

---

No, they're impotent. There's a difference. They may have every intention of supporting their resolutions, but if the US doesn't come along there's nothing they can do.If the US made a policy of following UN resolutions you might have a point about the 12 years. But the US doesn't, so you don't.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

mark24 writes me:

quote:

---

Nonsense, there is the rest of the world, it is the United Nations, not the United States.

---

Doesn't matter, mark. The US can veto any UN resolution. Other countries can too, of course, but that doesn't much matter either. If the UN doesn't do as the US dictates then the US will ignore the UN, as we did regarding Iraq.

quote:

---

The point I am making is that you shouldn't threaten force unless you are going to deliver.

---

I agree as far as that goes. But this wouldn't have been* the first time we've threatened force without following through. And if we are going to threaten force, why wait 12 years before acting on the threat? By that time, wouldn't you say that our inaction has spoken rather more loudly than our words?You and I haven't had much interaction before, mark, but I have read many of your posts. I realize you aren't pro-war. I consider this merely a matter of principle that we're arguing.EDIT, at *: changed 'isn't' to 'wouldn't have been'.This message has been edited by berberry, 06-04-2005 09:12 PM

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005