|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 16:37:59
I agree with you Fatmomma on alot of what you just said! :)
Yes, the US attempts to rally the security council were half-hearted and not very well executed. They knew, from 50 years of dealing with the UN, that this was a stupid route to take and could only end in their embarrassment - that's all France cares about when it comes to its veto.
I think they felt they should have finished the job 11 years ago. But what stopped Bush Sr.? He didn't have a UN mandate and knew he wouldn't get one.
Bush Sr. was the only president to go to the security council to authorise military action. He did this as a means of empowering the UN post-cold war. But, the set up of the security council is so far removed from global reality that the US quickly learned not to bother. That's why we have no UN support of the Kosovo campaign.
The government is now telling us that because attacking Serbia was done under the auspices of NATO that it was sufficiently multilateral. But this means that had the Warsaw Pact attacked a country, Canada would have said, "its perfectly alright, since they are doing it multilaterally."
If you think that Saddam's Iraq
1 - had no WMDs nor the desire to acquire them.
2 - had no expansionist ambitions.
3 - would not collude with Al-Quaeda or Al-Ansar or Al-Anything to kill some Americans
then I suggest you apply for a job in Saddam's ministry of information! :)
Répondre à ce message
|
