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

[Sil Greene <quack AT ibiblio.org>]

"Don Rua" <rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>   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. That Kerry brings us to the
> day dreaded for so long, where the US does what it is told, by delegates 
> that
> we have no opportunity to elect. We cease to follow our own guidance. We 
> cease
> to look at circumstances, judge for ourselves, and act.
>

No, we'll never know.  But frankly, I disagreed with our leaders on this 
one.  It wasn't necessary.  And I disagree with your implication about the 
UN:  WE participated in its construction; WE have a veto vote on the 
Security Council.  It's not a matter of them telling us what to do.  We 
chose, once upon a time, to join a group of nations in deciding what was 
best for the world.  This is a matter of honoring that commitment for the 
long term.  It's not a matter of not following our own guidance, or not 
electing the delegates.  (I agree that would be nice -- let's start 
talking to legislators about making that position electable as the 
president is today.)  It's a matter of making a good role model for other 
nations -- stand up for your beliefs, but know when to back down and 
follow the will of the majority.  It's democracy for nations, and if it's 
good enough for us it's good enough for them.


Iraq was not a threat.  Let me repeat: Iraq was not a threat.  We made 
Hussein's Iraq 20 years ago by bad policy, and we've made it what it is 
today with bad policy.  How many more years are we going to dick with 
this sovereign nation?


--s