thorsteinveblen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Posts
- 539
Good evening good folk.
Have you read the text of the proposed resolution forwarded by the President to the Congress? (if not, you can find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Resolution-Text.html ) I am struck dumb by its reliance upon decade old resolutions of the United Nations, the admittedly heinous but equally stale abortive attempt on George I's life and unsupported allegations of safe passage to al Queda operatives. For what is set forth in the draft resolution tens if not hundreds of thousand of human's will die?
Do not misunderstand. The leadership of Iraq is despotic and villianous. Every effort should be undertaken to turn the citizenry against them and to render their continuation in power and authority increasingly difficult. But do these allegations justify the waging of war as the armed forces of the West now wage it?
If we are to commit to war it should be for harm and injury (or the imminent threat of both) directly to we the people who unite to, among other reasons, provide for the common defense. In waging war on Iraq at this time and for these reasons who or what is being defended?
Historians, guide me. Have the armed forces of this country been committed on the basis of a less direct threat in the past 226 years? I think of the worst incursions: Panama, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Lebanon, China. In each there was a direct and immediate threat to U.S. citizens and assets. In a search for comparatives I can think only of the forces landed in support of Russian Government prior to the final Bolshevik victory. At least at that time there was a shooting war to take sides in.
If we are to fight let us have a real declaration of injury. This board has tremendous people reading it. I am certain those who support armed intervention can better argue their postion than the current administration.
Have you read the text of the proposed resolution forwarded by the President to the Congress? (if not, you can find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Resolution-Text.html ) I am struck dumb by its reliance upon decade old resolutions of the United Nations, the admittedly heinous but equally stale abortive attempt on George I's life and unsupported allegations of safe passage to al Queda operatives. For what is set forth in the draft resolution tens if not hundreds of thousand of human's will die?
Do not misunderstand. The leadership of Iraq is despotic and villianous. Every effort should be undertaken to turn the citizenry against them and to render their continuation in power and authority increasingly difficult. But do these allegations justify the waging of war as the armed forces of the West now wage it?
If we are to commit to war it should be for harm and injury (or the imminent threat of both) directly to we the people who unite to, among other reasons, provide for the common defense. In waging war on Iraq at this time and for these reasons who or what is being defended?
Historians, guide me. Have the armed forces of this country been committed on the basis of a less direct threat in the past 226 years? I think of the worst incursions: Panama, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Lebanon, China. In each there was a direct and immediate threat to U.S. citizens and assets. In a search for comparatives I can think only of the forces landed in support of Russian Government prior to the final Bolshevik victory. At least at that time there was a shooting war to take sides in.
If we are to fight let us have a real declaration of injury. This board has tremendous people reading it. I am certain those who support armed intervention can better argue their postion than the current administration.
