Say –
How did you manage to pack so much inanity in to one little ol’ thread? That takes talent my friend.
Anyway, for starters, lets examine the idea that one can violate a U.N. resolution by way of the veto. Not that I’m a huge fan of the U.N., but how exactly is utilizing a procedure baked in to the U.N. charter, and without which there would have been no U.N. at all, violating U.N. resolutions? There is no U.N. resolution if it is vetoed – it never passed. It doesn’t exist. That’s like saying the President is violating Congressional laws by vetoing them. Quite frankly, this takes the cake as your most inane statement ever – or at least the most inane that I’ve seen. I wouldn’t want to sell you short.
On the next subject, the perception, or lack thereof, of the various leaderships of the countries in the mid-east region of Iraq as a threat really does not affect at all whether Iraq was enough of a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens for our government to take action.
As I pointed out in another thread, with the current state of the world, the U.S. is not really worried about an invasion or about an actual country taking us on, because this would amount to regime suicide. Even that crackpot in charge of North Korea has apparently realized that. However, when people who want to hurt you have one avenue cut off, they are very adept at finding another, and you had better adapt your perceptions, planning and defenses to suit the changed situation. In this case, the current security risk is that rogue regimes who possess WMD (of which nukes are currently viewed as the most problematic, but bio and chem weapons could pose very serious risks) would get together with terrorists (or perhaps even do it themselves, but that is more unlikely) and unleash the weapons on a large U.S. population center.
As such, the calculus has changed. The old ideas of MAD and detente with nationstates are only applicable to the extent the nations themselves would act. Without such a national actor, and given that terrorists are mobile and difficult to pin down, the current view is that the best way to keep the such terrorist actors from getting WMD is to stop rogue regimes from obtaining, keeping and/or distributing those weapons.
Given that, the U.S. government’s first and foremost duty as a government is to protect its citizens from attack. To do this, it may need to engage in preemptive actions like the one just completed (at least as far as the removal of Hussein) in Iraq. The perception of other countries in the area of that threat, or the lack thereof, is relevant only in terms of international relations with those countries, but not in terms of whether there is a threat to U.S. security.
Now I’ve forgotten what else you were claiming, so I’ll post this for now and get back later. Cheers.
PS – Say, I apologize for personal attacks I have leveled against you in the past several weeks. I will blame my lack of sleep and apologize. I will continue to criticize your statements, and even use descriptive words to characterize your statements, but personal attacks are unwarranted. Once again, sorry.