Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad
...Thus, you cannot use that as an argument to back up your point and show that the US will do it successfully again, because it hasn't always been been successful previously.... <I>intro to logic class removed...</I>
|
I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Nowhere did I say that a war against Iraq would be successful. I'm merely stating that if we, as a nation, determine it's in our best interest, and we perceive the threat as real enough, the UN becomes relegated to second fiddle.
Don't think that just because I agree with most of Bush's views, that I'm blind to his political tactics. Although I don't buy the "make war in Iraq to cover up troubles at home" line one bit. But as far as how he's gone about building support -- deny repeatedly that military action is being planned (wink, wink); disseminate rhetoric regarding "regime change" and "Axis of evil"; wait for world to decry U.S. unilateral actions; then capitulate to the world body and call for a U.N. resolution while declaring their impotence if they fail to act.
A quote of your I missed earlier:
Quote:
|
The foreign press and foreign public opinion remains in the vast majority against an American bombing/invasion of Iraq.
|
Yes, they remain opposed to a unilateral American attack. I was referring to military action against Iraq if backed by the U.N.
Quote:
|
I would like to note that all of my points showing the parallels between the 'maniac' Saddam and domestic US policy went unchallenged. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that the US did not supply with a variety of arms during the 1980s. I am more than happy to acknowledge a fellow debater's point, if it is correct, and I am somewhat saddened that people simply choose to ignore truthful statements so their own arguments don't appear weakened by previous perceived 'losses'.
|
Sorry you feel entitled to some attaboy's.. UT doesn't have any gold-star smileys, so how about just some regular smileys? Here ya go:
But you still haven't really made a point as far as that goes. What sort of weapons were sold to Iraq in the 80's? If I have my history right, it was in our interest at the time to help Iraq fight the Soviet Union at the time, what with the cold war and all. So we sold some rockets and whatnot to them, maybe even some biological weapons.
That was 20 years ago; the world was a very different place back then (God that makes me feel old). But for us slow folks, please state how any of that has any relevance to whether we should attack Iraq today. No, the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean. What's your point?