Dragonlich

I might want to say something about Annan's statement, but I think the inaction of the UN speaks for itself. It brings back memories of the League of Nations, and we (should) all know how that ended...

roachboy

what would you have had the un do exactly?

authorize war on the basis of a specious case presented to the security council?

why is the rejection of a weak case for extraordinary action so difficult to process without attacking the body that rejected that case?

the analogy to the league of nations in this case is so thoroughly wrong that it is hard to know where to start a response to it.....


powerclown: your post glides over the fact that the un weapons inspections teams were actually in iraq, searching for weapons and not finding them--with iraq finally co-operating under the threat of military action. i actually had no problem with the bush people ratcheting up that pressure--the place where things fell apart was in the rush to war, going outside the framework without adequate justification.

by this point, given the domestic political situation facing the bush administration, and the impact finding wmds would have in fracturing the widespread opposition to the war, even you would have to concede that if there were any wmds to be found, they would have been found. and EVERYONE would know that they had been.

the administration was wrong. why is this so difficult to accept?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

charlesesl

UN is a kingdom? You just made my day.
And where exactly is the WMD every evil nation had known to exist?

__________________
It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl

FoolThemAll

Perhaps we should push for UN inspectors to inspect our case for war. That should buy us another decade or so.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

fool:
of course, that is based on a wholly ludicrous version of the situation that obtained in iraq at the start of the war, and also presupposes something legitimate about the neocon version of the first gulf war.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

scout

I sincerly hope the laws we broke while we was "invading" Iraq is enough for the United Nations to be so angry that they toss us out of the U.N. on our asses. I never seen the U.N. step up and do shit after 9/11. Why do we even bother with the U.N.? In fact, I can't remember a time the U.N. has ever done anything on their own without the U.S. bearing most of the burden. I say fuck the U.N., get us out now while there's still hope.

mml

Regardless of what Americans would like or think should be, the UN represents the interests of ALL of its members. The reality is that the vast majority of the world's population is opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. Annan has every right to his opinion, and in fact, his opinion is in the majority. In a truly global society, there must be some forum for international communication and agreement. While it is certainly not perfect, the U.N. is what we have and to make statements like "Let's get the hell out!" shows a rather simplistic or isolationist view to international politics, economics and security.

If we all take a deep breath and look at the facts, the US did act without final approval of the UNSC. Does that really matter to the US? Not particularly, except that one of the reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the war is that Saddam was in violation of UN RESOLUTIONS, ergo it would, according to international law, require authorization of the UNSC for this to be a "legal" action.

Now, the Bush Administration believes that the last UNSC Resolution (sorry, I can't remember the number right now) gave them the right to take action, most of the UNSC and the UN members disagree. So, in an attempt to keep with the topic, I think that Mr. Annan was right and just in his interpretation of this matter (regardless of what I think of the UN and his stewardship of the organization). I my opinion, the US under the leadership of President Bush and under the sway of the idealistic and simplistic guidance of the Neo-Conservative movement, rushed in to a war that was unjustified and poorly timed, planned and executed. Did Saddam need to go? Of course, but the US should have completed it's mission in Afganistan (which had UNSC support) while continuing to build their case against Saddam. If a more agressive diplomacy was used (much like what George H. W. Bush used to build a coalition) we most likely could have accomplished the same thing (albeit in a delayed time frame) while maintaining or even improving US stature and relations in the world. (But perhaps this is me being idealistic and simplistic - but I guess we will never know)

powerclown

The key word here is "UN INSPECTION TEAMS". U-N. As in United Nations. As in, the same weasels in bed with Hussein all along. What incentive would they have for finding WMD that the whole world already knew were there?! Why would passengers on a billion dollar gravy train want to cut short their vacation??

The UN Inspections were bureaucratic, political hide & seek bullshit. What the reality was, was that Iraq had WMD because they already used them, and everybody knew it. And the UN was in a bind because they didn't know what to do about it. They didn't want to authorize a war because they stood to lose too much, both monetarily and politically, because they knew that America would have to be the one in command of the war operation, which, to some certain, irrational countries would be an embarrasment to them. I say the UN should have been United (as in, true to their namesake) in their goal of ridding this strategically important area of the world of a crazed, aggressive and unpredictable dictator. But, there you have it, nobody said that chaos isn't the norm in this world, and always has been and always will be.

Now, the UN is only making the situation worse by not helping out in Iraq in this critically important time - when positive change is possible - and if/when the shit hits the fan and the country breaks down and explodes into violence and civil war and the region and the world are once again under the threat of a possibly even more aggressive, fundamentalist theocracy, the united nations of the "United Nations" will only have themselves to blame for their petty inaction.

roachboy

powerclown:

you sound like some john birch society type railing at the un, with the added tweak that now the un is bureaucratic but somehow the american state is not---the un inspections team, which was there on the ground in iraq, seems to have been much more informed about what was happening there in the run up to war than any of the "intelligence" assembled by the bush team.

and with the farce that is the war in iraq, you get a glimpse of what the unilateralist world imagined by the neocons might look like--contempt for international law, such as it is; fantasies of being liberators substituting for planning; a brutal occupation that appears to be widening into a civil war with somewhere between 12 and 15000 iraqis killed (civilians and combattants). the show run by an administration more than willing to lie to the public and to itself to justify the fiasco.


i think that in many ways the un is less than optimal, but relative to a world dominated by a self-blinding single power, i prefer the un not only exist, but become more activist.

i wonder if what is being run into here is a psychological boundary that is shaped by the discourse of the right.
faced with choosing between a conservative worldview and facts that do not fit, you seem more than willing to twist the latter to preserve the former.
often talking with conservatives is like talking with old trotskyites, except that the conservatives are more frightening, both because they are closer to actual power and because they rationalize their ideology as pragmatic. but the behaviours that i see are typically doctrinaire responses to dissonance.

not sure how much further to push this, given the parameters of debate in a politics board. so here i will stop.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

OpieCunningham

The U.N. is the logical next step in world-wide democracy. It is akin to the federal government over the state governments. Assuredly it has flaws, as any large organization will (though this incessant outrage for oil-for-food corruption is absurd coming from anyone supporting the U.S. gov't seeing as how the U.S. was also involved in that alleged corruption). But to denounce it as a whole and claim it is useless and should be avoided (when it doesn't do exactly what one sub-group within it desires) is nonsense. The U.N. is _exactly_ what the U.S. is striving for around the world.

I see only pure hubris and an utter lack of logic in anyone that believes the U.S. should abandon the U.N. It does nothing more than discredit the claim that democracy is desired over tyranny.

filtherton

Round and round and round we go. I'm glad i'm tall enough to get on this ride.

irateplatypus

if that is so, then that is the most serious reason to leave the U.N. a world-wide democracy would be a disastrous development. I would love to see every country in the world a democracy, but not have each nation be a "state" under a larger U.N. umbrella.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

powerclown

No clue what the hell that means, but its sounds funny as hell...

To address the alleged 'contempt for international law". If there was a law that told you to jump off a bridge 35 stories high, would you do it? If you don't want to be considered in contempt of the law, you'd better jump, or risk the wrath of the idealouges who would insist that you are dangerously rebellious and downright subversive. One nees to look between the lines and understand the spirit of the UN's motivations and decisions.

The world came together in the form of a legal, internationally-acknowledged body called the United Nations, and told Hussein (in the form of International Laws) to behave himself and come into compliance. He told them to go fuck themselves. The UN gets flustered, red-faced, starts to wring its hands, looks around nervously at eachother, then decides to give him another chance. Another Internationally Legal Law, another Resolution! The farce continues, and would have continued indefinitely if it weren't for 9/11, when theory met reality.

The scholars in their insulated, idealistic, utopian glass houses will continue to oppose this war on the basis that international law was broken, while simultaneously ignoring the lawless actions of the bandits themselves. Dishonest, imo. But, aren't we all?

*getting off soapbox for now*

OpieCunningham

Why have a Federal gov't, then? The Fed provides two benefits: 1- It protects the entire country from other countries and 2- It stabilizes the individual States so that they don't start attacking each other.

The U.N. provides the second benefit - promotion of stability within each country so that they limit their attacks against each other.

If there's no value in a world-wide democratic body, there's little value in a Federal-level democratic body. Even the Fed protection from other countries could be addressed by a multi-state collaboration which does not include a Federal body.

Ustwo

Based on how the UN is run, I'd rather live in a monarchy then a UN lead world wide democracy.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

logically incongruent. there must not be a single unified authority over all mankind because it will not be accountable to any body other than itself. having nation-states has its weaknesses, but it does ensure that there isn't a single governing body who is immune from external considerations.

there is a clear difference between different sizes of competing states and having only one umbrella state.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

JumpinJesus

I'm confused as to what you mean by theory meeting reality on 9/11 as it pertains to Saddam Hussein and the UN resolutions. It appears the argument is being made that allowing Saddam Hussein to ignore UN resolutions was a direct contributing factor of 9/11.

Could you clarify what you mean?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

OpieCunningham

Nope.
I could say the exact same thing about the Federal Gov't. There is no authority over the U.S. beyond the Federal gov't which holds it accountable in the realm of it's governance over the States which comprise it.

You seem to be concerned with some type of dictatorship aspect of an umbrella state. Is the Federal gov't a dictator over the States? Only as much as the U.N. would be a dictator over the Nations.

If you were really concerned about the dictatorship of a single governing body - how do you explain the U.S. push to police the world? Is that not even more of a dictatorship than an organization comprised of representatives of each nation? The U.S. foreign policy is actively engaged in world-wide governing and it is immune to external consideration and it is not comprised of the people it is governing. Classic dictatorship. This is why I see nothing but pure hubris from the anti-UN, pro-US crowd. They do not want democracy - they want U.S. control and attempt to label it "democracy".

skyscan

I declare this thread full of preconceived notions and using little or no facts/news to justify viewpoints. Even if facts/stories were found, would they be found to make what you already "feel" is right proved or to objectively find out the truth?

To point out how futile this discussion has become I will use the following examples:
I feel that it is very hard to read this and not feel that you are attempting to insult something rather than review their decision. Secondly, if they did support the Iraq war would the UN not be a "money-kingdom?"
So what made us think we could find them even if our inspectors were sent in? Also, why haven't we found them if this is the case?

According to Hans Blix in his appearance on "The O"Reilly Factor" Hans stated: O'REILLY: But 17 violations doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
BLIX: Those 17 violations were before 1998. The entire transcript can be viewed here (I hate the source on that but it is the accual transcript) I'll let you come to your own conclusion.


Democracy is tyranny of the majority. If you meant U.S.A. style that would be Constitutional Republic. As I've heard before in world government discussions "Think it's hard to have your voice heard in a country of 293,027,571 (July 2004 est. according to
CIA. World Fact Book ) ? How would your voice be heard in government of 6,379,157,361 ?"

irateplatypus

i wish you would have read my post with more care.

having the U.N. as a government entity that has juridiction over the entire world is very clearly different from the U.S. federal government over the states in the union. the U.S. government has alliances and the influence of competing governments to check it's power. if the U.N. were to have command over key elements of ALL states, then no such check would exist. a very different dynamic would be in place. the U.N.'s court would be the final authority for all mankind... i don't trust anyone with that kind of power. will you not recognize the difference?

my post had nothing to do with dictatorship/democracy though if a situation like this were in place i would definitely prefer a democratic system.

the U.S. is actively engaged in all parts of the world because it must be. because unless the world's greatest superpower gives it's stamp-of-approval on a deal it often loses legitimacy, because we have the wealth to genuinely help people (and i'd love to see us do more), because the U.S. is a leader in the world and not a follower. if leadership is needed then i'd much prefer that the U.S. take burden.

i've read enough TFP to realize that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't by some people... i'm glad we don't try to appease them.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

I did read your post. I believe there is a possibility that you did not read my response.

There is no other country that can or will tell the U.S. Federal gov't how much money to give to the state of Ohio. No country can tell the Federal gov't to illegalize or legalize the death penalty for all 50 states. The Federal gov't is the supreme authority over all 50 states of the U.S., bowing to no one other than the people that it represents.

And that is exactly what the U.N. is designed to be for the States of the world.

There is no difference between the U.N. governing the world vs. the Federal gov't governing the 50 States of the U.S., other than it being the next level of democratic organization.

The U.S. cannot lead because its agenda will never be an agenda composed of the power of the people it proposes to lead. The U.N. is the only organization capable of leading in that capacity. What you are describing is the current U.S. foreign policy - a dictatorship controlled by the U.S.

Again - hubris. "The U.S. will lead because it is good and knows best." You're asking the entire world to accept something you, yourself, would not: a governing organization over which the people have absolutely zero control.

irateplatypus

did you honestly think someone was trying to convince you that a foreign government was controlling fed/state affairs? it's insulting that you would assume that is the crux of our discussion. as everyone loves to point out, we (our country) does not exist in a vacuum. although no outside authority tell us how to run our domestic agenda, it does not mean that international forces do not shape our government policy. In the current nation-nation model... we all approach problems from a peer to peer perspective. one nation barters and bargains with another nation. granted, some are more powerful than others... but the power balance is in constant flux. the important thing is that all nations compete along the same body-politic stratification.

if you introduce a body with legitimate powers that presides over nations and not among them, you have changed the fundamental power structure. instead of a nation-nation paradigm, you have shifted to a nation-world gov-nation structure (much like the current state-fed gov-state model we in the US use).

the difference between the two lies in the fact that although our current internal model would resemble a nation/UN model... there would be nothing outside of that political sphere to effect change on the internal machinations. do you see? we have our model... but that system is tempered by undeniable outside influences. a similar model on a world scale would have no such check on its power.

to say that American foreign policy is a dictatorship is quite ludicrous. there are times when our foreign policy moves are squarely oriented at benefiting ourselves... but there are many many other examples of where U.S. involved is demanded and thanked. there are also many instances when lack of U.S. involvement is lamented.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

Yes. That is precisely my point.

I'm open to being convinced of this supposed difference - but you are not connecting the dots.

If the Fed decided to prohibit Florida from trading with California, who has the outside-the-political-sphere power to challenge the Fed's decision? Canada? Spain? The U.N.? No. No one other than all 50 of the States themselves have that power. Remove all other nations from the equation and the U.S. still exists with 50 states and the Fed is the final authority. Decisions made by the Supreme Court are not in any way affected by other nations. The Supreme Court is the final authority.

Taken to the next level, the United Nations is the final authority for the world and as long as it is atleast a representative democracy, it is controlled by the people of the world. That the current iteration of the U.N. is mostly a two-degrees removed representation is a problem that would need to be remedied - but assuredly the solution is not to denounce the U.N. alltogether.

When a state in the U.S. disapproves of an act of the Federal Gov't, the answer is not to secede.

I think you may be confusing the term 'dictator' with 'oppressive dictator'. The U.S. is assuredly a dictatorship when it comes to dealing with other nations - that it offers help simply means it is, in comparison to a dictator who did not offer help, relatively more benevolent. That does not make it any less of a dictator. If the U.S. wants another nation to do something, the U.S. will exert as much of it's power as it deems necessary to force the nation to accomodate. And if it is important enough, there is nothing the rest of the world can do to stop it (see: Iraq war). This is not a democratic process - it is a dictatorial process.

A King could give everyone a day off from slavery once a year. That is an act of kindness in comparison to a King who does not provide that day. In both cases, the King is a dictator. The former is oppressive and the latter is benevolent.

irateplatypus

of course i'm not saying that all decisions at all levels are influenced in some way by the international dynamic. but, i do think it is unrealistic (hypothetically, not naming you specifically) for someone to claim that the international community doesn't fundamentally effect important aspects of policy.

perhaps i am confusing terms... but i'd like to discard the word altogether in this discussion as i dont' think it fits the relationships countries have with eachother very well. the discrepancy occurs when you liken it to a king and similar authorities: king's have legitimate legal authority of their domain. they decide when the slaves get a break because the slaves, in a sense, are theirs.

nation to nation relationships are different. if i were having a dispute with a friend and i call a more powerful third party to broker a bargain with said friend... would you call the third party a dictator? if i were short cash and only one person had the resources to lend me money... would that person be a dictator? if i and a host of my friends were milling around unsure of how to tackle a problem... would i be a dictator if i gave our group coherance and leadership? i don't think dictatorial actions necessarily follow in these circumstances.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

If I wanted to, I could sit here and argue against the U.N. and against the Fed and against my State and against my City Council and against anyone who would claim to tell me how I should live my life. But I do not see this supposed line you have drawn between the ability for a City, State or Fed to have checks in power that are unavailable over the U.N. Worse case scenario - if a State decides to imprison all blacks, the Fed will step in to prevent the States from doing so _because_ the other States would want that action. If the Fed failed to step in, it would be replaced by the actions of the other States. If a Nation started to kill all of their Christians, the U.N. would step in to prevent it from doing so _because_ the other Nations would want that action. If the U.N. failed to step in, it would be replaced. If the Fed gave the order to imprison all blacks, the Fed would be replaced by the States before the action could be carried out. If the U.N. gave the order to bomb the Vatican, the U.N. would be replaced replaced by the Nations before the action could be carried out.

The outside-the-sphere-of-influence only exists within the people. If I want a change in my state, I do not sit back and wait for the Federal gov't to read my mind and institute a change. If two cities within a state clash, the state gov't steps in to handle the situation (note: this is the more powerful third party you describe below - but both cities have theoretically equal influence on this third party). If two states clash, the Feds step in. If two nations clash ... the U.S. steps in? This is not appropriate because the U.S. is not only not an equal representative of each of the clashing nations, but it is not even a representative of any of them. This is the job of the U.N.

In order to exist, the U.N. must please the nations that it is comprised of as best as possible. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the U.N. to negotiate fairly between any two conflicting nations. Put the U.S. in that role and fairness is not on the table. The U.S. exists regardless of the two nations it it attempting to mediate. The U.S. will push for a resolution that is most favorable to it, not a resolution that is most favorable to the two nations in dispute.

Your concern for an unchecked U.N. is unfounded as long as your concern for an unchecked Fed exists. If you want to argue that the U.N. shouldn't exist (or be extremely limited) and the Fed shouldn't exist ... you could argue that all the way down to the city level. But there is zero logic in arguing that any one of them should not exist due to lack of power check - the power check is in the democracy.

King's have legitimate authority over slaves? According to who? The King? I don't think the slaves would agree.

In your friend-as-broker analogy, I would indeed call that more powerful friend a dictator if there was any question in my mind that he did not have equal friendship with me as he did with you - in which case, he would not be a dictator, he would be an equal representation of both of us - i.e. the U.N. For the cash analogy: as I said, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. For your aimless group of friends analogy: You would be a dictator if they decided you should not decide what the group should do.

The U.S. is a dictatorship. That is the position one holds when one makes decisions for others without their consent by means of representation. I'm sorry you don't want to believe that. I know it doesn't sound like what the U.S. is supposed to be - which is precisely why this anti-UN nonsense needs to stop.

Stompy

I don't think it's a matter of whether the war was justified, it's a matter of legalities and process.

There's a process you must go through before you attack another country, and if the US didn't follow that process, then it's illegal.

It's like if you KNOW someone is a murderer, you can't just waltz up into their house and take evidence... you need to follow the process, get a warrant, and do your bidness.

THAT is what he means by "illegal", not "Attacking Iraq was wrong because Saddam is a sweet lady who eats candy."

Of course, it all boils down to how the charter is interpreted. There IS that portion that says something to the lines of "or face dire consequences/actions" if something isn't followed.

__________________
I love lamp.

DJ Happy

That's because the UN can't do anything unless the US agrees to it. It's a great card to play, this "Power to Veto" lark.

If violating a UN resolution is a valid reason to invade a country, how many Americans would then object if the UN organised a coalition to invade the US?

By the way, anyone who tries to justify the war by telling us that Saddam was a nasty dictator is deluding no-one but themselves. And if they sincerely expect us to believe it, then they might as well call themselves hypocrites and be done with it.

seretogis

Ever see Red Dawn?

The war in Iraq is justified only because we, the US, gave Saddam the means to have biological and chemical weapons. We essentially gave him WMD and he could not and would not account for them, so we were compelled to remove him. It is a matter of personal responsibility that we came to Kuwait's aid in 92, and that we finished the job ten years later. The rest of the excuses/justification is window-dressing.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

OpieCunningham

And to think ... I would have been fine with an apology and a promise to never give away any more.

scout

If memory serves me correctly, it wasn't just one UN resolution, but over a dozen. How many more resolutions would have needed to be passed before something was done?

DJ Happy

Don't know. Exactly how many would you like Israel or the US to violate before they're also invaded? Israel has the worst history of all UN nations of violating resolutions (yes, even worse than Iraq). Should we invade them next?

smooth

Just one that authorized doing something would have sufficed.

Or do you mean, how many before the US got its demands? That I don't know, but seeing as it's the United Nations, I would venture a guess that's something the global community was capable of deciding in a democratic fashion.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

DJ Happy

An interesting little article about the hypocrisy of the US and its decision that "those who violate UN resolutions must be punished."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021028&s=zunes

An excerpt from the above link:

"A survey of the nearly 1,500 resolutions passed by the Security Council, the fifteen-member enforcement arm of the UN in which the United States and the four other permanent members wield veto power, reveals more than ninety resolutions currently violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of these violations are by governments closely allied to the United States. Not only have the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies not suggested invading these countries; the United States has blocked sanctions and other means of enforcing them, and even provides the military and economic aid that helps make ongoing violations possible. "

powerclown

Another interesting little article pertaining to the UN:

Sun Sep 19, 8:32 AM: Iran Rejects UN Call for Uranium Enrichment Freeze

More gentle musings from A.O.E. Member #2:
I wonder who's going to blink first.

Tophat665

You know, I was going to point out the irony of $eretogis ( kisses dahlink) diverting attention from roachboy's post about the diversionary tactics of the administration, but that would be bushleague.

Lots of sarcasm and kneejerk reactions here. Let's see If we can cut through the crap a minute:
1) There were UN resolutions and sanctions against Iraq.
2) There were inspectors on the ground who apparently seem to have been doing their jobs.
3) While I admit we had allies in going into Iraq, it seems to me that the only body that has any jurisdiction over enforcing UN resolutions is the UN itself.
4) By taking it upon ourselves (or, rather, by Bush taking it upon ourselves) to use force to implement UN resolutions in defiance of the UN, we crossed the into vigilanteism.
5) The absence of any WMDs in a year and a half of looking pretty clearly illustrates to me that we also fell into the trap of vigilanteism - punishing the wrong people.

Now one could say that we didn't actually go in after WMDs. One who did that and called Kerry a flip flopper would have no credibilty. One could also pick nits and use exotic definitions of common words to cast doubt on what I have just said. That might work for people without much critical thought capability, but I was under the impression that we were better than that here.

One could also, without becoming hypocritical, go on to other reasons why it was a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein from power. One might even be correct in that assessment, but without a plan to win the peace, it is increasingly apparent that the likely alternatives to the Baath party are as bad or worse. In the case that someone held forth that we were in the right to go to war to remove Hussein for any number of humanitarian reasons, I might even be forced to agree with them, but the way we went about it has made a dogs dinner of the effort, and it still does not obviate the fact that we did it in contravention of international law, such as it is. (Were the chances of a happy outcome not receding daily, that might not be such a big deal, but, as it is....)

Last thing, both sides, could we please raise the debate just a hair. We all know we are unlikely to convince our opposite numbers, and we are all familiar with the talking points. This is a good place full of smart people; could we at least try to be original?

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.