At 08:21 23-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
<Sarcasm>The Franco-Russian obstructionism cannot be understood as a response to the Bush administration's hawkishness on Iraq, its doctrine of preemption or its drift toward unilateralism. Paris and Moscow have been championing the cause of Saddam Hussein in the Security Council since long before the election of George W. Bush. The two governments now portray themselves as advocates of Iraqi disarmament and U.N. inspections; but for much of the 1990s, their explicit aim was to weaken or abolish U.N. inspections and remove all U.N. sanctions on Iraq -- positions that helped their businessmen to win lucrative new contracts and their governments to harvest popular acclaim in the Arab world, at the expense of the United States.
And of course, the US has never obstructed the UN in order to protect its own interests...
</Sarcasm>
<Sarcasm>Never mind that both countries have never hesitated to dispatch their forces for foreign interventions where their interests were threatened, with or without U.N. approval.
And of course, the US has never dispatched its forces for foreign interventions where their interests were threatened...
</Sarcasm>
Ah yes, the old "if you are not with us, you are against us". So what if the French and/or the Russians vote against military action against Iraq? Will they be considered "against the US" and should they expect to find the USMC on their beaches soon?They already have succeeded in slowing and tempering the Bush administration's campaign on Iraq; now they must decide they are ultimately to stand with the United States or Saddam Hussein.
Jeroen "Must be those bloody Gremlins again" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
