Support ebbs for U.S. war plans [HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO ALERT]

PMSNBC ^ | 01/19/2003 | Karen DeYoung

[Publius Maximus]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - As the Bush administration heads toward a crucial United Nations Security Council meeting at the end of this month, a strong council majority appears less willing than ever to agree that early military action against Iraq is justified.

Snip

There is widespread international appreciation of the fact that inspectors would not be in Iraq today if the United States had not used its overwhelming military and diplomatic power, the official said. Bush could easily declare victory now and save himself a potential debacle. He's shown seriousness, and Saddam caved, the official said. If you ask whether the world is in a better position vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein than it was a year ago, the answer is Absolutely. Is that victory Yes, if you want it to be.

[Puppage]

how many of those 90 have a common border with Iraq? That's all that matters

OOOHHHHH, so, NOW it's not ONLY "going it alone" as you have stated...now the countries must be geographically prudent, too. Should they also wear shoes, or do you consider sandles proper footwear? Anything else ya feel the need to throw into the mix before I forget we ever started debating?

[LS]

I have no problem booting the UN. But if you think they don't serve a convenient purpose from time to time, you are wrong. Ever wonder why Switzerland and Sweden didn't get overrun in the various wars? From time to time everyone NEEDS a "neutral" spot (or one perceived as neutral) to pursue under-the-table negotiations. The UN provides this function.

Certainly they are a bunch of pansies and leftist wimps, and we should not fund them any more than the exact dollar amount everyone else puts up. But there are times that the international "cover" provided by the UN comes in handy. Ask Harry Truman.

[LS]

If you can't see Jefferson "beating the war drumns" for a country that "hasn't attacked us," you are clueless in history.

Jefferson did exactly that. In 1804, he got a resolution from Congress declaring WAR against several Muslim nations (the Barbary states) of which only ONE declared war against us. All the rest were "neutral," but, like Iraq today, totally involved. Jefferson sent the fleet and Marines and kicked @ss! He made it clear that he would KILL any foreign leader that threatened the U.S.

Indeed, Jefferson's was the first "pre-emptive strike" in U.S. military history. And well reasoned.

Germany signed the NATO treaty saying an attack on one was an attack on all. Iraq has been and is TOTALLY in cahoots with OBL and the terror gangs. Anyone who doesn't see that is as blind as a bat.

[LS]

You are babbling. My original point (since you can't seem to keep it straight) was that a) the UN is convenient for a lot of reasons (including buying time, which we needed anyway) and b) giving cover to those nations that we need.

No, we cannot "go it alone" insofar as we have zero support from anyone. We do not need military troops from nations, but we do need basing privileges. If you think otherwise, maybe you should talk to some people in our military. If you recall, we did not "go it alone" in Afghanistan. The first thing Bush did was to get SUPPORT from Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan, because we NEEDED THEIR BASES---their geography. Without that, everyone pretty well agreed that we could not have "invaded" Afghanistan successfully. And if you recall, it took more than a MONTH to get even those three "allies" in place to do what we needed.

It is a reality of life that, barring indiscriminate nuking of nations (which is simply ridiculous), we can no longer operate militarily alone in certain parts of the world.

[Toddsterpatriot]

People believe that this enormous [U.S.] war machine makes the council and all its fevered machinations look ridiculous.

The council doesn't need any help from us to look ridiculous.

[Puppage]

The UN is buying time? Are you nuts, or just an Iraqi sympathizer? The only one benefiting from this appeasment is Saddam. No one else. Period. I have been stating FACT, not "feelings" such as yourself. I'm through with you.

[Grampa Dave]

You and I are right about the movement of troops and ships.

If our Navy fighters could blast into hell the Talibunnies and al Queerdos in Afghanistan from over 700 miles out, they can launch and recover planes a distance from Iraq.

Last week the radio news on the West Coast before the paid rats marched to support Uncle Soddomite was filled with troop movements. The C5A's from Travis are coming in at night and leaving the next morning or next night loaded.

I picked the evening of 1 Feb after sunset for our attack.
We can bang the hell out of the mass murdering Soddomite Islamofascist thugs for days from the air while more troops and equipment head that way.

Of course none may be needed if Uncle Soddmite experiences Sudden Separation of his brain from his skull.

[LS]

Great arguments. "I'll whine, since I can't state either a theory or a principle." Brilliant. Glad you're "through with me," because I don't know if I can take much more of your stupifying logic.

[nonliberal]

Rhizome17-member since 1-19-03.

[nonliberal]

He's got WMD, remember?

He does not have a delivery system to get them to the US unless he straps them to Hahakmed and has him unleash them. He has already used Sarin on our troops in the Gulf and Bush the Elder did nothing about it so why should Bush the Younger be any different?

Killing the Hussein line of succession would eliminate Iraq as a threat. Quick, painless, and you aren't screwing around with the UN.

[The Great Satan]

He does not have a delivery system to get them to the US unless he straps them to Hahakmed and has him unleash them.

Think so, huh?