Re: [kj] DON ¹ T FORGET TO VOTE

[Mark Kolmar]

I'm all for the eventual disappearance or irrelevance of international
borders.  But in the current situation you can't very well allow one
nation to annex another sovereign nation (such as it is).  And you
also can't allow a dictator to flout international law (such as it is)
indefinitely.

I recall the so-called confusion about the U.S. giving Iraq the nod
had to do with the U.S. not getting involved with border disputes. 
But a full-on annexation is not a mere border dispute, such as
Kashmir.

I was in favor of both Iraq wars *on balance*.  I was not in favor of
the rushed timelines and the overall poor way they were handled.

--Mark

On Apr 7, 2005 6:48 AM, gregslawson at aol.com <gregslawson at aol.com> wrote:
> Tim Dude, 
> I don't think it means much to call Kuwait a "sovereign power". It is a
> country with only 60,000 citizens!!!!!!!! Most of the other people who live
> there (it must be about a million or so, right?)  are laborers, many
> immigrants, with very few rights. Sounds like a large slave colony to me.
> The first Gulf War was also about the US controlling oil, just like the
> recent one was. In fact, a couple of days before the US invaded, they told
> Iraq it was ok with them to invade Kuwait. Then Bush I went through a whole
> bunch of rationales for the war, and they planted yellow ribbons everywhere
> to win the public to it (I remember during the first week or so of the war,
> many opposed it. We marched on a major road in Boston, blocking traffic for
> about 20 minutes during rush hour, and all people did was honk and wave in
> support! Then the propoganda took over, and everyone seemed pro-war, more
> than they are now).