It looks like Bush may have gotten lucky, if he knows how to take advantage of it. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.aziz.assisi/index.html <I>"Iraq is a sovereign state. It has provided all of the security needed to re-inspect us, and we don't need United Nations troops to interfere or to be in our country," he said.</I> Iraq essentially rejected the French/German idea of sending in UN Troops. Bush should now wholeheartedly back that idea -- which has the support of a majority of the major Security Council members, including all veto-members. Pass the proposal, let Iraq formally reject it. He can then force the issue and say "We tried it your way. Now we do it our way." It will force Germany & France to come up with another tougher solution or support the U.S. strategy. It makes it that much harder to argue that we didn't try to avoid war.
LOL, we are trying to avoid war. We are giving Saddam a chance to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and end his quest for a nuclear bomb. War will only result if Saddam refuses to honor his promises and international treaties.
<B>War will only result if Saddam refuses to honor his promises and international treaties.</B> ... And the people support said war. Most Democracies are only going to support a war if their people support it. Ignoring world opinion got us to the point of having some of the largest anti-war protests in world history today. Bush is not going to have an easy road to getting that support back, especially as it gets more and more entrenched. If 90% of the French people end up anti-war, their government is not going to commit political suicide to support the U.S.
Not to mention... France has oil contracts with Iraq. Germany has business contracts with Iraq. Russia has oil contracts with Iraq. Gee...I wonder why they oppose war?
Or it could be that they are acting in this way in order to protect their vested financial interests with the current Iraqi government. Especially the Germans that sold them a centrifuge capable of enriching uranium. Hmmmm....
If we were jealous we would just make the same contracts with Iraq. It's a lot more expensive to send troops over there, negotiate with the UN for x number of months, and then maybe start a war after most countries support us.
That picture of the Pope is the highest I've seen his head prop up in years. He looks pretty healthy. Salud!
France treats Iraq like our government treats Saudi Arabia. Both relationships have zero regard for morality, with the profit motive as their number one priority. If we force France into renegotiating their relationship with Iraq (which I hope happens), then we certainly have to rethink our relationship with the Saudis or we will be hypocrites.
Totally agree. Personally, I am more than willing to call everyone on their own issues around the world if we are willing to own up to our own problems. Frankly, if we were willing to do that, we probably wouldn't have so many people pissed at us all the time.
I agree. Currently we need the Saudis in order to have a staging area for our action against Iraq. At some point, I believe we will have our day of reckoning with the Saudis. It has become clear that the Saudi government sponsors terrorism in the form of monetary payments to the families of suicide bombers.
I actually read in US News & World Reports that the US was so set on tackling Iraq at this point so that they could safely persue a course of action that might lead to war with the Saudis. This totally blew my mind coming from that normaly somewhat conservitive magazine.
This seems so inherently dishonorable. I mean, um, we need your bases now so we'll be your buddy but you better watch out later. It's like borrowing money from a guy you know stole it so you can pay your rent and then turning him in. I could live with this kind of behavior if we didn't stand so high on our damn horse all the time. It's so incredibly hypocritical. More importantly, when you have an administration that pledged to restore honor and dignity (along with morality) to the White House and they turn around and act in a way that is so questionable with regards to places like SA. Sure, you arm and train terrorists that kill American citizens. Sure, you fund terrorism throughout the region. Sure, your leaders are some of the harshest and most dogmatic on the planet. Sure, you treat women like slaves and have a list of human rights violations a mile long. But, we really need to borrow some of your land for our own personal military mission in Iraq, so we'll just ignore that for now and be friends. It's just stinks so badly.
The problem here is that back in 1991, the UN mandated that we maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia in the event that Saddam did not comply with the order to disarm. It wasn't really our choice, it was a term of the international coalition back in 1991. NOTE: This is the SAME UN that many people want Bush to go through now. People cannot pick and choose when they want the wishes of the UN to control Middle East policy and when they don't. They must be consistent...either the UN is driving the bus on this or they aren't.
I'm not the first to bring it up, but is it then time to threaten force against Israel, Turkey and Morrocco if they don't abide by the UN Security Council resolutions?
Are the stated consequences for violation of those resolutions force? Resolution 1441 has as its publicly stated consequence the use of force should Iraq violate the Resolution.
