BHS

That's very astute, and I believe you are correct. The Conservatives will be in power long enough for the Liberals to sack Martin and replace him with...who? Then we face another election, featuring a disheartened and discredited Conservative Party, and the Liberals under new management. That makes Jack Layton the "wise old man" of the three biggest parties. In such a scenario I predict gains for the NDP, which is just horrifying, personally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> If Bush uses this in a speech, and next year the mullahs announce that they've got nukes, will this mean that BUSH LIED?!? I mean, for consistency's sake.

Danes, Dutch, it's all the same.

is only correct if the intent of diplomacy was to ensure a war and not to disarm Iraq. This would indicate that the sole objective of the U.S. in going to the UN was to give their attack a measure of credibility. Therefore, the invasion was a unilateral fait accompli before the U.S. even went to the UN. the facts,a s revealed in the Downing Street Memo for example, would indicate that was the case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Um, two years before 9-11? You'd better check your dateline. Bush became President 8 months before 9-11. Unless you're suggesting that Bush started scheming the Iraq invasion while he was still Governor of Texas, and how would Clarke know about that? I have no illusions that UN approval was nothing more than a fig leaf. Such is the nature of all diplomatic initiatives. But the fact remains that the US was willing to put it's plans on hold and negotiate terms for going into Iraq, and Chirac's public statement was the end of the diplomacy.

Sorry to quote out of context, but you've reminded me of an argument that I've seen before and that I'd like to comment on. I have no doubt that you're right about this, but this seems to me more like giving in to blackmail than formulating an enlightened social policy. There are laws in place to deal with the criminal aspects of the homeless lifestyle. There are sentences that could be given, both in prison and mental treatment facilities. That our justice system and our political class chose instead to view homeless criminals as victims of circumstance isn't reason enough to buy their good behaviour with welfare handouts.

I don't think anyone gives a rat's rear about the island itself. We're more concerned about the way international boundaries will be affected in the surrounding water.

That's not what I meant to say. I don't see the States starting into a new war in the forseeable future, no matter who is elected. (Caveat: unless some new terrorist catastrophe taking a large number of lives strikes US soil, in which case a new war is almost guaranteed, regardless of which party is in. A London train bombing sized attack isn't big enough.) My reference to a Democratic president (Hillary, actually) was added for no particularly good reason, except that I don't think a Republican will win the next election. As for the president "not allowing" nukes to be used, I can hardly see how it would be preventable. This is the dilemma with North Korea: short of catching them by surprise with a nuclear attack of your own, there's nothing you can do to stop them. Any conventional weaponry you throw at them will surely be met by nuclear force. The Americans won't be following either option under the current circumstances. Which means that North Korea will continue to be a threat to it's neighbours for the forseeable future. This is the scenario we may one day soon be facing with Iran.

No, let's not. The intervention in Iraq is a part of the war on terror, whether you choose to acknowledge it as such or not. Chirac did waffle and offer a one or two month extension, but he did so later in March 2003, only after he'd played his ace and declared his intention to veto outright on March 10, 2003: Chirac Veto (If you're not fond of Fox News, feel free to copy the quote from Chirac and run it through a search engine. It was widely quoted at the time.) At that moment on March 10 it was clear that diplomacy was futile, because France had already stated that it would use it's (unwarranted) power of veto to override any decisions made.

I started this thread based on Max Boot's article. I included a link to the subject text for information purposes only.

Pre-emptive means a strike is inevitable, and you stop it by acting. What that policy entails is damaging a nation based on the idea they might someday become able to challange the US. How can this policy garner anything but resentment from the world community? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, whoa there. The idea of non-proliferation is very popular, and has been for a long time. If the "world" resents the US having nukes and taking action to ensure none of these nightmare regimes gets ahold of them, then what are these non-proliferation treaties for? I've posted before and I'd like to reiterate now, that I have serious doubts about America taking on another war through the remainder of Bush's term, and the inevitable Democratic term to follow, and I believe this has largely to do with UN/Euro whining about doing what is needed to clean up the mess of the Middle East. So if, in that time, Iran acquires nukes and (God forbid) uses them, we all know who is to blame. (Hint: not the US.)

I am (unlike many conservatives) all for the decriminalization of cannabis. I don't know that it's an important enough issue for a referendum (ie. no government is going to risk public ire over wasting money on it). While I understand the emotional push behind the war on drugs, I believe that the inclusion of marijuana within the scope of that effort is misguided and consumes far too much in the way of resources with far too little effect. The Americans believe that marijuana's chief fault is that it is a stepping stone drug, leading to the abuse of far more dangerous drugs. I agree, but with the caveat the alcohol and tobacco are also stepping stone drugs. Making alcohol legal while prohibiting cannabis doesn't make any sense. Prohibition is too difficult a regime to enforce, when the prohibited substances are easy to grow or distill. I've given a lot of thought to whether all drugs should be decriminalized, and I've come to the conclusion that harder drugs (eg. LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc.) should remain illegal, and that it's not a "slippery slope" to allow the consumption of pot while prohibiting blow.

Let me get this straight: we're suppossed to be as upset about a country's intention to veto a resolution which was never put forward (a sentiment also expressed by Russia, BTW) as we are about the actual actions of a country which has led to turmoil and blodshed? Anyway, I've already said the veto is one of the biggest barriers to an effective UN. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A major argument against the war on terror is that it is "illegal" because an 18th resolution specifically approving military intervention was never approved. The American administration made a great deal of effort to convince the Security Council that the war was necessary. However, Chirac declared that no matter what happened, no matter how much support the Americans could attract to their cause, France would use it's (unmerited) veto to deny Security Council authorization to the intervention. That declaration of intent marks the end of American efforts to further persuade the world that it's goal was legitimate. If you ever want to lay blame for the end of pre-war diplomatic efforts, you need look no further than Chirac.

It's hardly a strawman argument. France was prepared to act in a truly unilateral fashion to directly oppose the American led coalition. And yet, the anti-war crowd overlooks this entirely, preferring to disparrage the contributions of "bought" allies so that they can say that it's really the Americans who are acting unilaterally. Which is utterly ridiculous.

That's a rathe rbroad statement, given the fact there are something like 1.7 billion Muslims in the world (that's about a quarter of the world's population), most of whom are living quite peacefully. It seems that Muslim violence is mainly isolated to certain regions, which indicates its a political problem, not a religious one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree about your last point: as Mark Steyn has pointed out, warfare is a constant theme where Muslim dominated regions abut non-Muslim regions, regardless of local politics.

Really? That's interesting because only an idiot would try to cast countries like Tongo or Angola as serious contributors to the Iraq war effort. So, you can squawk about it, but the facts indicate the invasion was a de facto unilateral effort on the part of the U.S, with a few bit players lending token support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay then. You won't be persuaded, and I really don't care. My point has been made: France was prepared to act unilaterally in absolute terms and that's just fine, vive la France; America accumulates international support which is only a fraction of it's own contribution, but they're still the bad guys for acting "unilaterally", if only in a "de facto" sense.

No, but lumping them together with people who are chronically unemployed due to a lack of social skills isn't right either. I notice that weed-smoking twenty-nothings convered in tatoos with a history of fist-fighting with co-workers didn't make your list. I'm all for a two-tiered health care system, and I'm all for applying a similar logic here. Seperate cases into different classes. Elderly women who got shafted by cirmcumstance get welfare until they die, and nice greeting cards on their birthdays too. Single mothers get welfare until their children are old enough to babysit themselves. And tatooed layabouts who're on the cusp of making it big in accordian flavoured punk music get half a year to get their acts together.

Don't be an idiot. I recognize that sense of the word, and at least half of the population of the planet recognizes that sense along with me. It's only partisans trying to make political hay out of American failure who make these ridiculous redefinitions of commonly understood terms.

Interesting reading. I suppose I could take a pro or contra stance on the court's reasoning in that case. It was my understanding that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the counting would have violated pre-determined deadlines for selecting electors, and that the US Supreme court held that those deadlines were still in effect, and that was why the recounting was cut off.

True, the UN is credited with the creation of the State of Israel, although they were following a partition plan drawn up by the occupying British that probably would have been implemented with or without UN approval. The fact that Israel is a democracy has nothing to do with the UN and everything to do with the Israeli people. Like you said, whatever. TotalFinaElf was the single biggest beneficiary of the Oil for Food and Palaces program. From the New York Times: Oil for Food So what was that about the US being the biggest beneficiary again? PS - Unilateral means "by yourself". When the US, the UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, and a host of other countries co-operate on an invasion, it's not unilateral. You can file that way for future reference.

You got your reply in while I was working on mine. I am also convinced that a United Democratic Nations is the best route for global government. We had a discussion on this topic a while back. Here's my first post on the subject: United Democratic Nations I can't seem to link to the exact post, but it's the one where my reply begins, "I agree...It would be nice, and it's pretty much every science fiction fan's fantasy, if humanity could..."

I don't see an either/or situation with your two descriptions. The UN is a nattering talk shop organization that doesn't do anything useful or practical. Giving dictators a forum to address the global community on "equal" terms is neither useful nor practical, but on the other hand it does little harm and is therefore tolerable in that regard. I don't get where the UN has in general been an impediment to democracy, though it is true that the UN hasn't actively encouraged the creation of democracies. If you're talking about the current Iraq situation, I would say that France threatened a unilateral Security Council veto because it was opposed to a war that would upset it's sweetheart oil deal with Saddam, not because it was specifically opposed to Democracy. That France (of all countries) has been given such unilateral decision-making power in order to maintain it's self-enrichment is a travesty in itself. But the US is the only country to have ever gone to the Security Council to seek permission to go to war, and not receiving this additional permission didn't stop them anyway, I fail to see how the UN had a useful or practical effect. I'm guessing the "scares children" point was some sort of exaggeration for the purpose of humour, unless you know of some wacky Republican points that I've not yet heard. As to your reference to socialism, I refer you back to the first sentence of my comment about the UN's attitude toward democracy, with similar effect. My take on the UN is that socialism is the preferred mindset of the institution (with it's "Secretary General", how Soviet), but the UN isn't really capable of directly influencing governemnt form or policy, even in those wretched hellholes like "Palestine" that it supervises. Again, no useful or practical effect. John Bolton, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter: US history is full of nincompoops riding the coitus escalator to success. It's hardly a sign of the times. I'm sure President Hillary will have her share of "controversial" nominees too.

Um, yes. I think. For the non-rhetorical questions anyway. Like I said, it's only the UN. It's not like anything important happens there.

Interesting. I'd not heard of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine before. Also interesting that you bring up Bush v. Gore. I understand how the 14th amendment is not an above-board excuse for the Supreme Court's intrusion on the matter. But since the heart of the matter is the election of a federal official (indeed, the highest federal official) doesn't it follow that the federal courts should have some jurisdiction over the process, to ensure that their interpretation of due process is being followed?

I just read a short review of the Slaughterhouse case and it's legal aftermath. Interesting. I'll keep my eyes open for further references to the case.

Pocketrocket: Those stories are horrifying. I'd like to play along and make guesses about the outcomes, but I really don't want to think about those situations anymore. From my perspective, you might as well just tell us what happened.l