Tweet
Sava, I was talking about your comments about Wolfowitz. 
-
-
We've been talking about that resolution before, still it was unlikely to pass.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What makes you so sure?
I would think the 98-0 vote against in the Senate makes everyone really sure that Kyoto never would have passed.
Though I think that question was about the ICC.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
I guess we'll never know, as no serious attempt was made. However, of all the world's possible targets, there could not have been one much easier than Hussein. In this case I think the results of US diplomacy (i.e. utter failure) speak for themselves, as well as for those persons involved - and responsible.Once the Taliban were gone, was there anyone in the world easier to build a coalition against than Saddam Hussein?
Actually, I think it was pretty tough.
In that case resignation is what I expect.1) A lack of coalition building was certainly not Powell's fault. A diplomat has only as much leeway as his president gives him. Powell had no room to bargain, and the intelligence alone was obviously not enough to convince other nations. What do you expect?
That is the only honorable alternative if your personal views on the most fundamental aspect of your job are in direct conflict with those of your boss. Failure to do so means Powell must accept at least some of the responsibility.Comment
Comment