Hummel, unfortunately I have to side with the belief that the professors are intellectually weak. Edsforth for one, if I remember correctly, put some rather unconvincing arguments out there in class.
“It would destroy the power of the United Nations in a similar manner.”
Power to do what, exactly? To not enforce its own resolutions, appoint Libya head of the human rights commision, appoint Iraq head of the disarmament coference simply due to alphabetical order (procedure trumps all), or fail to prevent slaughters in Rwanda and Eastern Europe, among other things? The fact is the UN is an inherently weak body because it is not willing to take a sold moral stance against any of its members without the US’s prodding (which it demonizes the during the whole process). The League of Nations partially failed due to a lack of US involvement. Does any one think the UN is any different? Without the US, the UN has very little power.
There was also this:
“If we go to war without a declaration of war,” Edsforth said, “this would be grounds for impeachment.” He repeatedly quoted the Constitution — Congress has the power to declare war — and compared action without such a declaration to the imperialistic wars of “18th century despots.”
There may not be explicit declaration of war, but Congress has said in 1998 and last year that the goal in Iraq was regime change. Beyond that, I believe the President does have the power to take action in Iraq without a declaration. Furthermore, he probably has the votes, anyways. As for the ridiculous rhetoric, “the imperialistic wars of ’18th century despots,” come on. I didn’t realize that we were trying to colonize Iraq. If we are, great, Menashi can reclaim the family textile business.
“”unjust war of aggression against a country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us imminently.”
Well, they have been shooting at our planes for the last ten years, violated the terms of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War (remember no peace treaty was ever signed to end that war), plotted to assassinate a former president, and have harbored associates of terrorists. Other than that, they’re clean.
“In his view, the administration is using the pretense of an Iraq that is a danger to the world as a means for securing their own interests in the Middle East.”
What, such as trying to prevent further terrorists from attacking us? I’d say that’s a fairly valuable interest.
Be the first to comment on "Re: When Professors Attack!"