I doubt this is true. The US & Britain have 44 other countries supporting them. How many countries are backing Saddam and France?
Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.
After 12 years and 18 UN resolutions, all that was needed was another few weeks? How foolish.
The whole inspections farce was part of a delaying game. France, working for Saddam, was trying to delay the use of force until it was too hot in Iraq for us to attack. Would you be willing to done a chemical suit for a couple weeks at the hottest time of the year in the Iraqi desert? Oh yea, you’ll be in combat too.
Even the US & Britain can’t afford to keep 300,000 troops and equipment stationed on the Iraqi border for another 8 months waiting for the weather to cool.
Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law.
UN resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, the only (false) debate was what was meant by severe consequences. Saddam and France wanted it to mean double secret probation, not real consequences.
As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?
Is the UN the only place for democracy to take place? How is it democracy when only 5 nations have veto power?
As stated earlier, the US & Britain have 44 other countries backing them, it sounds to me like democracy has spoken.
I am happy to stand with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, I hope you are as comfortable standing with Saddam Hussein, a man know worldwide as an evil brutal dictator and madman.
Pukka Puck, you're right -- there is no such thing as international democracy. And there never will be as long as the US can ignore the will of the majority with impunity.
Weirdad, you're a scary guy. Perhaps you don't believe in democracy, but at least GWB claims to. The promotion of democracy in Iraq was one of the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.
Catalonia, I'm not assuming anything about the positions of particular foreign governments or their benevolent intentions. Any more than I assume the positions or the intentions of individuals when they vote. Any more than I'm assuming GWB's benvolent intentions toward Iraq, for that matter. Individual nations, like individual voters, may be corrupt or devious. I am assuming only that the majority will act in good conscience. To assume the contrary -- that mankind as a whole is malevolent and untrustworthy -- is to assume a level of nihilism and chaos that IMHO would not be worth enduring.
RJL, in Catalonia's words, "you are assuming that the stated positions of foreign governments are their true positions." The U.S. spent billions of dollars bribing and browbeating the "support" of those 44 countries. Even at that, the list is a bad joke. Have you looked at it? (Turkey is part of their "coalition of the willing"??)
Had Bush been willing to wait, he would eventually have had a true world majority on his side. As it is, he's given every tinpot dictator a justification to invade his neighbor whenever he feels "threatened". Not to mention the boost he's given Bin Laden's recruiting efforts.
It's the difference between a fair trial and a lynch mob. It has nothing to do with the guilt of innocence of the accused, or the appropriateness of the penalty.