The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Soverignty II - Some are better than others

Liberals are truly disengenuous when it comes to this issue of sovereignty. They know full well that Iraq forfeited its right to claim sovereignty when they invaded Kuwait. The US had a treaty with Kuwait and was bound to honor it whether or not the UN joined. Bush 41 put a lot of effort into building a UN coalition. This was both needless and set the stage for the Bush 43 attack later. Being the top super power and wealthiest nation is not an easy road to travel when you consider the envy it certainly generates. I am sure Bush 41 was simply trying to be a team player by asking the UN to go along. This path of getting people to like you never seems to work.

So when we had Saddam on the ropes and could have plucked him from power, the UN said no. The best course of action would have been to ignore them and finished the job, instead a cease fire agreement was signed by Hussein. For the next 12 years Hussein did everything he could to break that cease fire agreement, thereby forfeiting the right to a cease fire. Because of this, it was fitting and right for Clinton to send in bombs against Iraq. It is unfortunate he did this to distract the nation from the Lewinsky affair, but it was within the auspices of the UN resolutions and Hussein's broken cease fire agreement. When Saddam for years did not let inspectors in, did not provide proof that the WMD was destroyed, provided hospitality and encouragment for terrorists. When the intelligence of many countries determined he had WMD, and we learned not to wait for threats to become terror after 9/11 we had the right to invade again. No further UN resolutions were needed. Still the liberals cry about invading Iraq's sovereignty in spite of its forfeited status.

At the same time liberals shoot off their mouths about capturing Osama Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is that Osama is most likely in Pakistan. Pakistan earned the right to be called an ally of sorts with their cooperation during the attack on Afganistan. Not an ally you would lower your guard with, but an ally nonetheless. While it is not likely the leader of Pakistan is doing as much as he says he is to find Osama, that is difficult to prove. I don't think any are suggesting we go to war with Pakistan at this time.

So the only route open to us in apprehending Osama is to send troops into the SOVEREIGN country of Pakistan to get him. Our troops would not only open themselves up to be fired upon, it would be quite a breach of diplomacy verging on an act of war. Yet the liberals continue to spout their mouths off about ignoring Osama to fight in Iraq. The worst is that most leaders who say it know the issues, yet they ignore them not willing to pass up an opportunity to stick it to Bush every chance they get.

I do wonder how the liberals would react if Osama was captured or killed. When I saw the tragedy of the earthquake in Pakistan my second thought (after concern of the people) was hoping that somehow Osama was in that region. He is supposed to be on the border with Afganistan and this is on the other side but we can always hope. Nevertheless, the liberals can cry about the sovereignty of Iraq, yet they think nothing of the sovereignty of Pakistan.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home