Posted on 02/15/2003 6:27:14 AM PST by Clive
It was a good day yesterday at the United Nations for the axis of weasels.
That is, the coalition of the unwilling led by France, Russia, China, Germany, etc., which has now turned UN Security Council Resolution 1441 completely on its head. A resolution that began by warning Iraq of "serious consequences" if it failed to disarm and prove it after ignoring 12 years of resolutions dating back to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, has now been reversed.
Now, three of the council's five permanent members agree the onus is not on Saddam Hussein to prove he has no weapons, but on UN weapons inspectors to find them. Incredible.
And since UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the council yesterday they have found no weapons of mass destruction, so far, the council's response was to call for more inspections.
For what? True, Blix was less critical of Iraq than he was on Jan. 27, even casting doubt on U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's claim to the council that Saddam was cleaning up weapons' sites prior to the arrival of UN inspectors.
But the substance of Blix's findings hasn't changed - that "many proscribed weapons and items" cannot be accounted for because Saddam still isn't fully co-operating with inspectors.
Blix said this applies to 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents, that at least one of Iraq's new missile systems exceeds the range set by the Security Council and that Saddam has allowed only three private interviews of Iraqi scientists, as called for by Resolution 1441, and none since Feb. 9.
While France and Russia applauded each other's call to give Saddam more time to deceive, the only reason he is co-operating at all is the 150,000 U.S. and British troops now gathering on Iraq's borders. Jean Chretien urging Saddam to be nice just doesn't cut it. Saddam, a brutal tyrant, has attacked three neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism and is clearly still in violation of 1441.
So what are the "serious consequences" he faces? Yesterday, a majority of Security Council members called for more inspections, an indication of the utter farce the UN has become.
France and Russia, especially France, are decieving every bit as much as Saddam. I'd be sadly misunderestimating Putin if I believed that he isn't aware of just how aware certain countries are of the extent of his dealings with Saddam.
The French and Russians know d@mned well they aren't supposed to applaud during proceedings. Their behavior was purile at best.
Chretien, another Third Way Clintonistabuddy, is just as convinced today as he was last year that President Bush is 'a moron'.
Thank you to the Toronto sun and the author of this editorial for pointing out facts rather than parroting the leftist party propaganda line. That took courage, especially in Canada under Chretien. I knew I wasn't wrong about the mood of the Canadian people.
I am impressed that Canadians have an accurate read on the subject.
The more one learns, the more the loose ends of the last decade appear to have a rational cause.
The 'end-game' of the last war was avoided by Bush I to appease the U.N. axis of weasels. Of course, the weasels never had any intention of enforcing the containment policy, thus permitting the radical Muslim cancer to grow. With Clinton at the helm, they had cover.
From the '93 World Trade Center bombing, TWA800 missile attack, to the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, the radical Muslims simply ran rampant over America under Clinton's watch.
However, the Bubba was running on 'Peace and Prosperity', a lie, fabricated at the expense of America's future.
From the avoidance of, and outright lies surrounding, terrorism on American soil, to the lack of oversight of the stock market, Clinton was the author of his sham fairy tale of peace and a booming stock market, unchecked by Left-Wing compliant press.
When more and more Americans learn that their personal stock market valuations earned over a lifetime of toil, and the very lives of their loved ones, were sacrificed to serve the unholy ambitions of the Sink Emperor, what will they do?
Will they watch Joe Millionaire, or just party?
Actually, it died years ago as a toothless tiger that can do nothing but debate for endless hours. I am hard pressed to think of anything the U.N. have ever succeeded in doing.
The "Oklahoma City terrorist bombing" was carried out by the American government hater, Timothy McVeigh, not a Muslim.
Terror attacks have been carried out in other parts of the world as you not in your post. After 9/11 we had the support of most of the world and IMHO, if Bush had been more of a statesman, we would have more support for our plans than we do now. Instead Bush backed out of treaties, ignored international meetings and took a "you're with us or against us" approach. While we may well be right, the way we have gone about this has been counter-productive.
Don't follow the newest anti-Bush party line. Follow the truth: follow the money.
Anti-Bush party line?
It may surprise you to know that my reaction to the way he has conducted his foreign policy is a product of listening to what he says and asking myself what results he expects his words to produce. His words are not designed to build alliances, but to assert his position as king of the hill. Not exactly what he promised during his campaign when he said he was "a uniter, not a divider". Or later, as he set out for his first trip abroad when he said that he was going as the "humble leader of a great nation."
I did as you suggested and I thank you for the advice. That is something I didn't know and interesting reading.
I don't quite see however how it is analogous to the current situation. I know that France and Russia have contracts with Iraq to rebuild their oil infrastructure once the sanctions are lifted but this seems a different set of circumstances to what precipitated the American refusal to pay Cuba's debt to Spain.
If France, Germany, and Russia support our efforts in Iraq with men and arms than at the end of the campaign, their contracts should be honored, if for nothing else than they have acted as our allies. Why wouldn't the debts and contracts be honored?
It's more than likely that I'm missing something here and would appreciate it if you pointed it out to me.
And guess what city took them in? Oklahoma City!
McVeigh had known contacts with radical Muslims, and in fact early reports were that he was seen in the company of them that fateful morning.
Clinton needed to counteract the Conservative right, and he spun the tale as the risks of allowing anti-government, i.e. anti-Clinton types, to go unchecked. It was in his own words the decisive moment in his presidency. His motives are obvious, as is your Socialist bias.
Realistically speaking, I can't imagine that the "new" regime would not be independent enough of US influence to make those decisions without our approval. If we are not willing to support the payment of debt to our allies, then why would they reasonably support us in regime change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.