You're right outsourcing foreign policy is a bad idea and anyone who thinks it's a good idea may be a moron. Although if you think about it long and hard and ask: When was the last time America had express U.N. approval to do anything? Panama? Granada? Vietnam? ...Iraq? The U.N. has never actually been the last word in any nations foreign policy. Sadly, I don't think the U.N. has ever prevented any kind of military aggression through diplomacy. So then, my question would be how is the U.N. supposed to take over our ability to govern ourselves if it can't even prevent Russia from invading Afghanistan or America invading Iraq? The members of the U.N., again, don't have the final word on any part of the worlds foreign affairs, what they have are very official looking documents that are generally only backed by the nation supporting it (unilaterally or otherwise) and it's allies. Support for the U.N. means most likely support for diplomacy, something the Bush admin understood, to a degree, when they sent Mr. Diplomacy himself Colin Powell for U.N. support.


About the ceasefire, I assume you're referring to the
so-called "world [effort] to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people."(BushOct.7, 02) In that case the world only consisted of the U.S. and the U.K. the only nations (besides France who withdrew in 96) that recognized the UNSANCTIONED "no-fly" zones, which didn't protect the Kurds from Iraqi incursion in 1995-96 nor have they protected the Shi’a or the marsh Arabs from ground based repression throughout the decade. If the legitimate resolutions in violation by Iraq carried a weight that couldn't be called unilateral then why does Washington effectively block resolutions of the same type against nations/countries allied with the U.S.? For that matter, why do you even bring up these resolutions and state that the only reason to go to war is when there are violations of resolutions that have been established with the cooperation of the U.N. who you call a committee of socialists? If what you say is true--if violations of these resolutions are the only reason to go to war--then rivals of Turkey and Israel have every reason to target them.

As for propaganda I don’t think there has been another Admin that has taken such backlash from their own propaganda, that is to say I have yet to hear of any comparisons to that end. The propaganda that you say was used to gain support around the world obviously didn't sit right with most of the world; just look back at the worldwide protests going on abroad and in America where some news media outlets treated the thousands of protesters as ridiculous left wing clowns. Anyone who believed, as Bush did, that "Iraq had trained al Qaeda members in bomb making poisons, and deadly gases."(Bush Oct.7th2002) Had to take the administrations word on that, as well as with the accusation that Iraq had WMD's and was a clear and present danger to America. Even though there were many intelligence officials at the time who believed the contrary; the Administration chose to run with intelligence that made Iraq look like a threat--intelligence that has not been substantiated--rather than intelligence that claimed the opposite. Now that even the partisan 9-11 commission is saying there was no cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, I’m starting to believe that maybe it was certain people of the Bush administration who are retarded and incapable of making valid arguments based on reality. One point I believe is relevant is: if Iraq did have WMD’s or was trying to make some then where was the Israeli intelligence about them? Surely Iraq’s close neighbors and our consistent ally would keep a sharp eye on Iraq no?

I agree with you that we should not outsource our ability to govern ourselves but I don’t see Kerry's winning of the presidency as that kind of a threat. When you play partisan politics and try to say that democrats aren’t suited to handle “this type of situation” consider that Bush had only five or so years of public service to account for, before becoming president and facing the situations he faced. I only speak against Bush in that way because although you make no claim that you are going to vote for him you clearly don’t seem as though you’d vote democrat. And if anyone wants to I’d have to ask the same question you posed, only from a different perspective, which is “what do you really think Kerry is going to do that is better than how it’s being handled now?” Besides the Draft (a possibility only furthered by the incompetence of this Administration) and the very imaginative Socialist take over? The answer in my opinion is not a whole lot, I mean Do the differences in Bush and Kerry really amount to all that much of a difference? I don’t think so. Indeed not very much would be different.

I will have to disagree with you about propaganda, because if we start to believe this then what is the use of actual evidence and logic when making major decisions? Will the government be reduced to listing wild accusations for any and every argument/situation within American politics? And we’ll all just sit by and say it’s okay till one day someone goes too far with their propaganda and not only wants to make up a reason to do this or that but wants to give us a very real justification, the cost of this justification being American lives and liberties taken by the very gov’t. that was set up to ensure those liberties and protect those lives.

Kerry the U.N.'s Socialist posterboy

Excuses, Excuses