From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 21:15:06 MST
"Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
> The United States signed the United Nations Charter and (under the
> Bush administration) resolution 1441. These are solemn agreements
> made on very serious matters and any breaches of them and the
> consequences of any breaches of them by the US (under the Bush
> administration) will remain on the public record longer than Saddam
> Hussein or President Bush remain at the head of their respective
> Nation states.
Exactly what international agreement, solemn or otherwise, has the USA
breached? I know of no treaty the USA signed that said it will not use
military force unless it gets the OK from the UN. The situation is certainly
not unprecedented, just a few years ago the USA kicked Slobodan Milosovic
out of power in Kosovo without a UN blessing and it was not the end of the
world, in fact I do not believe the it would be a happier place if that
murderer was still engaged in ethnic cleansing.
> "French President Jacques Chirac said yesterday he was willing to
> accept a one-month to two month deadline provided the move was
> endorsed by the chief UN weapons inspectors"
Translation: France will never EVER endorse force to remove Saddam, it has
not in the 4 ½ months since 1441 called for disarmament or face serious
consequences, and I don't think things will be the slightest different in 5
½ months or 6 ½ months or 666 ½ months. And a rather silly Swedish paper
shuffler named Hans Blix feels the same way. As for many Americas, they feel
unwilling to trust their lives that the UN will protect them from the next
massive terrorists attack; the UN seems incapable of enforcing an overdue
library book fine.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 21:22:29 MST