what would you have had the un do exactly?
authorize war on the basis of a specious case presented to the security council?
why is the rejection of a weak case for extraordinary action so difficult to process without attacking the body that rejected that case?
the analogy to the league of nations in this case is so thoroughly wrong that it is hard to know where to start a response to it.....
powerclown: your post glides over the fact that the un weapons inspections teams were actually in iraq, searching for weapons and not finding them--with iraq finally co-operating under the threat of military action. i actually had no problem with the bush people ratcheting up that pressure--the place where things fell apart was in the rush to war, going outside the framework without adequate justification.
by this point, given the domestic political situation facing the bush administration, and the impact finding wmds would have in fracturing the widespread opposition to the war, even you would have to concede that if there were any wmds to be found, they would have been found. and EVERYONE would know that they had been.
the administration was wrong. why is this so difficult to accept?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
Last edited by roachboy; 09-16-2004 at 07:56 AM..
|