Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Oct 3, 2004, at 3:03 PM, Don Rua wrote:

> Let's say Kerry was in Bush's shoes, and it is time to back up the 
> umpteenth deadline from the UN regarding Saddam. Kerry starts doing 
> his world tour to build a coalition, and he's told basically the same 
> thing by France, Germany, Russia, China, etc., namely: "We don't want 
> any part of this war. Wait for a UN mandate, don't go."

The UN asked Iraq to disarm and it did, so there wouldn't be a need to 
invade. The basic problem with the post 9/11 Bush Doctrine is it throws 
200+ years of American military doctrine out the door.  From my 
readings of the neo-conservative Wolfowitz et al presence in the Bush 
administration, they were advocating invading Iraq for years before 
9/11 ever happened, and then used that event as an excuse of furthering 
their goal of remaking the middle-east through force.  This is why 
Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neil (a long time 
Republican) reported his very first meeting in the new administration 
(long before 9/11) was about Iraq, where they passed around the 
document "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

>     I think that is the real question. We will never know if someone 
> else could have put together a better coalition, but the real fear in 
> some voters minds is that if the UN doesn't decide we should do it, we 
> don't. That Kerry would never have the nerve to do what our leaders 
> thought was necessary, unless the global community gave him 
> 'permission', putting all our defense on the character and talent of 
> their leaders, not ours.

Of course is we are about to be attacked there's no reason to go to the 
UN; this has always been US policy, one supported by every US president 
except "W", and one Kerry would continue. The only reason "W" messed 
around with the UN was to put a cover story on the invasion that it was 
to enforce a UN resolution because there wasn't even minimal evidence 
of an impending threat to the US.  The best they could come up with was 
forged documents and the like showing Iraq might be attempting to 
obtain the basic raw materials for nuclear research, which falls 
woefully short of the standard for preemption.

Can you imagine what the result would have been 200 years ago if, 
instead of having our own American revolution, the French invaded the 
colonies to "liberate" the people from the evil tyrant King George, and 
then proceeded to establish a republic.  Do you think our patriots 
would have joined the invading French army or shot at them?

___________________________________________________________________
michael at czeiszperger dot org
Chapel Hill, NC