Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's a fact the U.N. did not approve a U.S. invasion of Iraq.> It's also a fact that the UN did not disapprove of a US invasion of Iraq. <It's a fact an invasion would not have been approved had there been a vote.> It's a fact that France said it would veto any such resolution. It is not a fact that a majority of the Security Council was against it. <It's a fact we invaded anyway. Hence, the end run.> It's a fact that President Bush addressed the UN and the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that told Iraq to comply with past resolutions or face serious consequences, thus allowing an invasion. Hence, no end run.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's a fact that President Bush addressed the UN and the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that told Iraq to comply with past resolutions or face serious consequences, thus allowing an invasion.>> I've told my children to follow the rules or face serious consequences. I've never tried to kill them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Serious consequences" is a relative term. Considering we'd already imposed sanctions and "free-fly zones" and performed multiple bombing missions on Iraq, what other "serious consequences" could they have expected?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><It's a fact the U.N. did not approve a U.S. invasion of Iraq.> It's also a fact that the UN did not disapprove of a US invasion of Iraq.<< Denied: Argument from silence.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's also a fact that the UN did not disapprove of a US invasion of Iraq." See, here's where the dishonesty part comes into play. When you start parsing events like this, it's downright nauseating. Seriously. "It's also true there aren't condos on the Sun" makes about as much sense. You know damn well the U.N. wasn't going to approve an invasion, period. Denying it just makes you look worse, and more like Baghdad Bonb all the time.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's like he's trying to play "what the definition of 'is' is" games. It really doesn't fly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You know damn well the U.N. wasn't going to approve an invasion, period.> I know that France said they'd veto an additional resolution. Again, that does not mean that a majority of the UN Security Council would have been against it, because early indications were that at least 8 countries on the Council would have voted for it. To claim that the UN was against our removal of Saddam because one country with a veto and was against it is dishonest. When you start spinning events like this, it's downright nauseating. Seriously.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I know that France said they'd veto an additional resolution." That means it wouldn't be approved. Period. A majority means nothing if the veto is invoked.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Yes. So it's a specious argument to claim that the UN disapproved of our action in Iraq. Or that President Bush did an "end run around" the UN.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, no. Because you yourself claim that France would have vetoed the measure, so that would have been disapproval. By doing an end run around them, he didn't bother to allow them to vote, which means he did not get their approval, and would have gotten their disapproval, as France would have vetoed it. That's very simple, no matter how you wish to slide around it via semantics.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's not not even semantics anymore, it's simply being contrary for the sake of it, which is the worst kind of blind party loyalty.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because you yourself claim that France would have vetoed the measure, so that would have been disapproval.> "You're either with us or against us", huh? I didn't realize you only dealt in black or white. <By doing an end run around them, he didn't bother to allow them to vote, which means he did not get their approval, and would have gotten their disapproval, as France would have vetoed it.> But they did vote. They unanimously approved of a resolution that authorized any member nation to take whatever action necessary to ensure the resolution, and all previous resolutions, were complied with.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's not not even semantics anymore, it's simply being contrary for the sake of it, which is the worst kind of blind party loyalty." I'd say it's using semantics as a way of avoiding and evading the discussion. And that would be a discussion that on its face would not look good for the Republicans or the Bush Administration. And that is blind party loyalty, as you say. Personally, I'm left on some issues, right on others. I think the Democrats are not our saviors, but think the Republicans have managed to really foul things up. I think some people would defend to the death anyone, no matter what they do, if they label themselves as a member of the GOP. This makes absolutely no sense to me. For some reason, loyalty to the name "Republican" is more important than truth, more important than history, more important than the well being of ourselves and our country. That is the tragedy of all this polarization. People lose sight that it's all about what's best for our country, not what is best for George Bush and friends.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'd say it's using semantics as a way of avoiding and evading the discussion.> You'd be wrong. It's using the proper words to describe actions, rather than allowing others to mischaracterize what happened. The rest of your post is strawman building.
