dc and Rekna... I'm not disputing or agreeing with your viewpoints on how things turned out in Iraq. I'm only pointing out that the
official invasion of Iraq was executed as an
official U.N. initiative, not a unilateral act of aggression by George Bush...
unlike the unofficial unilateral invasion of Georgia by Russia.
If we are analyzing John McCain's senility based on the accuracy of the statement:
Quote:
"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."
|
...then his statement was technically accurate based on the factual perspective that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was a multilateral punitive action through the U.N.
Just because we don't like something, our opinions, popularity polls, unprosecuted assumptions and accusations do not change why the U.N. coalition acted against (violating U.N. member) Iraq. Until the official record is changed and Bush convicted for war-crimes, framing McCain's statement as inaccurate or senile is nothing less than propagandized political spin. If McCain implied otherwise, he would be criticized for not understanding the facts (and therefore incompetent), charged with spinning, or accused of being senile. It's how the game is played.
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 11 : 25 : 00-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Whatever happened to “speak softly but carry a big stick” approach to foreign policy and diplomacy?
|
Good point. Iraq is a perfect example of exhaustive world diplomacy, world diplomacy failing, then following through with the "big stick". Remember, there are two parts to that quote.