|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-03-02 23:41:37
The situations are obviously not identical, but I didn't say that. The world is, however, appeasing Saddam; just in a different way. They let him defy UN resolution after UN resolution, and do nothing about it. Why? Because they don't want to use force. We've seen the consequences of this unnecessary reluctance too many times. Don't get me wrong, all other options should be tried first, but when they fail, there is no viable alternative.
Iraq hasn't complied: they continue to lie, and 'magically' discover new weapons, chemicals and documents they just plum forgot about all the time. Come on let's be serious. As for the bribes, I fail to see the relevance of them. All western countries bribe all poorer countries to some extent or another; this is nothing new. We give them money and food if they 'behave' according to our principles. If they misbehave, they get their aid cut off. At any rate what does it say about Turkey that they are so willing to accept these bribes? Why is nothing said about them?
"Saddam is just a small player "
I see. Well, perhaps your definition of a small player is different than mine. I don't see how a man with WMD, a history of using them, huge amounts of oil, who invaded a neighbouring country, and a constant threat to the region and world's security is a small player. Furthermore, why did the UN vote unanimously on disarming him if he has such a small role?
Reply to this message
|
