I think I used the carat sign as an arrow, and confused the HTML machine. Try this:
As I pointed out in the post above, U.N. assistance with war assumes a scenario that frankly, was impossible in the first place. To simplify:
Possible scenarios:
- Initial U.N. approval = no war
The only scenario the U.N. would accept. Obviously, the entire issue of troops and rebuilding money does not apply.
- War = No U.N. approval
What actually happened, and where we are now.
- U.N. approval = war = U.N. assistance with rebuilding
This scenario was not going to happen, no matter WHAT Bush did. So the issue of how the U.N. would be a lot more helpful now if we had done something different is theoretical at best.
So what's the point? No matter what we could have done before, or can do now, the United States and its allies are stuck with the job and we might as well deal with it.
I'm not saying that your points were invalid, I'm saying they are only valid if one assumes that Bush went into the U.N. last winter and got approval to invade. Wasn't going to happen.
Current Events » in reply to If you assert that none of the items on my list are valid...
Whoa...just noticed a big chunk of my post disappeared.
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Bush U.N. speech persuades few
- Meanwhile: Baghdad Blasts Undermine Bush Bid for Iraq Backing
- Bush refuses to kiss U.N. ass
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- can't answer a simple question can you?
- re: Why did he address the UN, then?
- Perhaps you are asking the wrong question
- re: No
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- Bush’s U.N. fiasco
