This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.
Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More
For the second time now, you have advanced the oxymoron that the US has acted "unilaterally" in concert with dozens of other countries. This is impossible by definition, and there are only a limited number of explanations for your adherence to it.
The simplest explanation, and I reject this out of hand, is that you were too stupid to understand the terminology involved. You are obviously too smart for this explanation to be valid, so there must be another reason why you are clinging to a notion that is flatly and unarguably self-contradictory.
Another possibility, which I also believe to not be the case, is that you are so full of anger/hatred/rage about the situation that you are more interested in lashing out and spreading calumny than you are about telling the truth. That would hardly paint you in a positive light, and your general approach and demeanor does not strike me as somebody who is acting out of hatred or anger. So while hatred and/or anger often does cause people to say things that are contrary to truth and thus would explain the repeated use of a description that is impossible because because that description would be damaging to the presumptive target of the wrath, since I don't think you are acting out of wrath, I reject this explanation as well.
But I still need to find an explanation that even after being call on the misuse of the term, you are still so attached to it that you were willing to write, "and we and those dozen other countries-went at unilaterally." It's obvious that the pejorative connotation of the word "unilaterally" must for some reason be important to you, even though you are well aware that the definition does not, can not, apply. I will again point out that whether we acted unilaterally or not is completely irrelevant from a moral standpoint, so I find it hard to believe that you insistence on using the word is for any reason other than its negative connotation.
That pretty much leaves me with the notion that you have internalized Democratic party propaganda. While I don't think you are acting out of hatred or rage, there is no question that there was no shortage of folks in the Democratic party who absolutely were speaking out of hatred and rage at Bush. And one of the things they said in that hatred was that the U.S. was acting "unilaterally." And they said it a lot. And it is a lie. It is not possible by definition, yet they insist on it.
So given that you seem to be smart and acting in good faith, it seems to me that the most likely explanation for you using a term that isn't possible is that you accepted as true a propaganda point created by the Democrats. This would also explain your willingness to ignore the fact that Bush constantly gave an entire list of reasons for attacking Iraq and just focus on one, single, solitary point on that list that did not completely pan out.
You statement that the UN is the only body to enforce the UN's resolutions doesn't really do you any good here. The UN had already authorized the war against Iraq in response to its invasion against Kuwait. The fighting had stopped do to a cease-fire, not a formal end to the conflict. Iraq violated that cease-fire on numerous occasions, giving the other side full legal authority to resume full-scale combat if it so desired. A technicality? Yes, but since you're trying to argue on a technicality, it isn't really a problem.
As to a new resolution, the UN may have failed to pass one specifically authorizing the resumption of hostilities, but it also failed to rescind old ones or otherwise prohibit further action.
The UN chose (as normal) to be a non-factor in the conflict, so it really doesn't matter.
I again point out that you are wrong in assuming that Syrians actually have rights at the moment. They have none. Therefore, it is impossible for a new government to take away what isn't actually there. The evil most likely will be a different evil, but there is actually not all that much room for a post-Assad government to be more evil.
You remain incorrect in your stand on wars of rebellion. The Tsar might have gone down without the U.S. bugging in, but Imperial Germany certainly gave a nudge; they are the ones who arraigned for Lennin to get to Russia in the first place. Most of your examples are not applicable. There is a difference between a regime collapsing on its own and between it being overthrown in a rebellion. I will repeat a paragraph here:
It is also possible that regimes will crumble without a rebellion. We saw this with the Soviet Bloc at the end of the Cold War. But for this to happen, you need a population that is fairly homogenous in its opposition to the regime a security apparatus that is identifying more with the population than the regime.
Most of your examples come from this category. A number of your examples were Soviet Bloc countries, so they were even explicitly dealt with here. The French and Russian revolutions also belong in here (although the Russian revolution was more complicated). The civil wars of feudal England had almost nothing to do with the population throwing off an oppressive government and everything to do with the power struggles of the leading noble families. Cromwell would be your best bet.
In the immediate past there was a bona-fide civil war in Libya, where the rebels won with outside assistance. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Shining Path in South America also fought in civil wars, received no outside support, and are finished. Vietnamese rebels ousted the French with outside assistance. A Malaysian insurgency against British colonial rule withered on the vine and was defeated. The insurgency there had no outside patron helping them out. In the last few decades in Iraq, there were two seperate armed uprisings against Saddam, neither of which garnered outside intervention and both of which were brutally crushed.
For example, look at your first sentence. I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Then on top of that beginning, you just jam what should be at least 5 paragraphs into one big blob. White space might help you to avoid what almost seems like stream-of-consciousness at times.
I have no doubt you are intelligent and can be quite articulate. But you're not doing yourself justice here.
We had all the authority we needed to resume hostilities with Iraq. First, the UN is not the sole source of authority to decide who can go to war. Second even if it was, UN Security Council Resolution 678 was still in effect, so there is no validity to the claim that the U.S. was in any way acting in defiance of the UN.
I agree with your statement that people buy into propaganda because of their internal values. I'm not sure how (or if) you think that helps your case. Your internal values are clearly anti-war, so it would make sense that you would buy into anti-war propaganda. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're buying into anything because the Democrats were spouting it; I think you're buying into it because you're anti-war. It is simply coincidence that the Democrats happened to be anti-war for a while. As you point out, the Democrats initially supported the war. Their positions on the topic have always ween ones of political convenience, not principle.
You are of correct that war is always a terrible thing.
As to whether or not war solves problems, it depends entirely on the problems you're talking about. You can cherry-pick examples either way. The Franco-Prussian War and WWI certainly created more problems than they solved. The American Revolution and Civil War did the opposite.
What is the basis for your claim that the Iraqi people had pride in their army or that it didn't belong to Saddam?
Your attempt to distinguish between rebellions against native or colonial rulers doesn't really matter. The point remains that there is a ruler and the ruled, and that the ruled start out at a disadvantage. This is why rebellions against an established and powerful authority generally need outside assistance.