Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc

[jbor]

on 3/2/03 2:50 AM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:

> But M. has never been our guy when he committed those crimes. The double
> standard is that our governments had nothing to object to back then when
> Saddam did it. It simply isn't enough to justify a war.

You keep saying "back then when Saddam did it". It's not an isolated
aberration. Don't forget that Clinton & co sent bombers in when Saddam
defied the exclusion zone to attack Shia communities in southern Iraq in
1993, and again in 1996, when he attacked Kurdish towns in the north, and
that there was almost a war when the UN weapons inspectors were obstructed
and forced to leave in 1998.

> I'm against any unilateral action by members bypassing the UN or
> blackmailing the world community. Wasn't it Mr. Bush who has threatened to
> declare it irrelevant? The UN has only put out a resolution that Iraq has to
> disarm or to face consequences if in material breach of 1441.

And those "consequences" might include military action.

> I think it's not good critisising those who are critical of any war plans
> for "appeasement" or being responsible for Saddam's future crimes. Many
> people are really worried about what might happen to the whole region. They
> don't turn a blind eye.

I'm only contemptuous of those who are using the current crisis as an
exercise in anti-Bush propaganda, as they did with the war against the
Taliban in Afghanistan. Where you and I seem to be in disagreement is in
respect of the international community's responsibility to intercede when we
are aware of wide-scale human rights violations, breaches of
non-proliferation treaties and the like, and when and how action should be
taken. I don't believe that you have provided any alternative solution which
will prevent Saddam, and tyrants like Saddam, from continuing to do whatever
they like.

> I absolutely agree, but I guess with the veto-right of those big five we
> will never get an effective UN. It's simply no democratic structure.

So, now you're saying the UN is irrelevant? Or that you don't support it?
It's much more democratic in global terms than letting the most powerful
countries (i.e. the US) or genocidal tyrants (i.e. Saddam) do whatever they
want to do.
 
>> If and
>> when Bush goes against the UN then I'm with you 100%.
> 
> I cannot imagine that he will do that mistake.

I agree. It's the 2004 US election, not oil, which will be the motivating
factor.

> I don't think that turning the major interest from the war on terror to
> Saddam Hussein has been the very best idea. The Middle East should get the
> focus.

Well, last time I looked at a map .... But I take it you mean the
Israel-Palestine war which has been going on for decades, and there have
been ongoing UN and US attempts to broker a peace deal there. One of the
good things which has happened as a result of Sept. 11 and the subsequent
international coalition against terrorism is that the IRA dropped its policy
of terror attacks, and things have settled down in Northern Ireland quite a
bit as a result. 

best