First Gulf War Resolution

[??????????]

Question comes from a John Kerry vote.

[angus]

Question comes from a John Kerry vote.

well, it was 48-52 in the senate I believe, and the arguments offered by the opposition were economic in nature.  and we did hit a recession which cost Bush the election a year and a half later.  So, it's not like Kerry was out there by himself.  This resolution was much more controversial than the one eleven years later.  And the senate votes reflect that.  I voted NO on your poll, because I misread the question.  I felt at the time it was a bad idea, and, in fact, wrote my senator, LLoyd Bentsen about it, and he promptly wrote me back saying he'd definitely vote against authorizing force against Iraq at the time.

Things have changed since then, and many democrats who voted against Gulf I, voted in favor of Gulf II.  Try to keep these things in context.  I hope Bush wins, but I hope he wins for the right reasons and not out of a sense of paranoia.  Kerry is not the right man at this time, but he's not a lunatic or a coward. 

[iosip]

i was firmly against the first gulf war.

and i don't regret my stance.

[John Dibble]

No. I would vote for it. Simply because Saddam violated the borders of another nation for the sake of conquest. This proved to me that he did not respect the sovereign borders of any nation, so he certainly would not have respected ours. Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

[MODU]

Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

AMEN!  Remember though . . . the only reason why we didn't was because of the UN, and thus Saddam was allowed to kill his own citizens.  And what did the UN do?  Oh yeah, the same thing they always do . . . nothing!

[John Dibble]

Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

AMEN!  Remember though . . . the only reason why we didn't was because of the UN, and thus Saddam was allowed to kill his own citizens.  And what did the UN do?  Oh yeah, the same thing they always do . . . nothing!

You'll not find me, or many Libertarians for that matter, defending the U.N. Not only is it an 'entangling alliance' but it is a vile hive of villanous scum - where else would nations with no regard for human rights have equal representation to those that do?

[MODU]

Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

AMEN!  Remember though . . . the only reason why we didn't was because of the UN, and thus Saddam was allowed to kill his own citizens.  And what did the UN do?  Oh yeah, the same thing they always do . . . nothing!

You'll not find me, or many Libertarians for that matter, defending the U.N. Not only is it an 'entangling alliance' but it is a vile hive of villanous scum - where else would nations with no regard for human rights have equal representation to those that do?

You got that right.  Though I like the concept of a global representative body, it can never act as a policing agent.  I think the fact that the Western Powers head up the Security Council has been the one redeeming factor of the UN, and giving independent nations (like the US and her allies) the justification to carry out the punishment delivered by the UN. 

I have a more authoritarian design for the new UN, but we'll save that for a later discussion.

[angus]

The UN provides fascinating statistics, and badly needed food redistriubution.  I think a few dollars a year from every rich person in every rich nation is a small price to pay for the wonderful statistics and social research opportunities.  Not to mention food and drug aid.  Why is everyone so suddenly down on the United Nations?  Clearly, it was an invention of Churchhill and Roosevelt as a means to legitimize Anglo-American hegemony and control in the world.  But it has evolved into a fact-gathering and humanitarian aid body since then, with a mind of its own.  I'd agree that the UN should never involve itself in policing.  Leave that to the US marines or the British Army, or coalitions thereof.  Also, it should stay out of politics.  But, as a body dedicated to social research and feeding the poor and providing medicine to the infirm, and statistics to the rich, it has earned its keep, IMHO.

[Prospero]

No. I would vote for it. Simply because Saddam violated the borders of another nation for the sake of conquest. This proved to me that he did not respect the sovereign borders of any nation, so he certainly would not have respected ours. Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

Oh, please.  Like Saddam was on the verge of invading America.  Perhaps he would have dressed an army up as Mexicans and had them sneak across the Rio Grande. 

Since we are concerned about respecting borders, was it OK for Kuwait to be slant oil drilling under the border into Iraq?  Because that's what it was doing.

[No more McShame]

Also, we should have taken him out during the first war.

AMEN!  Remember though . . . the only reason why we didn't was because of the UN, and thus Saddam was allowed to kill his own citizens.  And what did the UN do?  Oh yeah, the same thing they always do . . . nothing!

I'm sure they talked about it or passed some resolution or something.  <sarcasm>