>From a posted article; just a couple of nitpicks that I have - Debbi, who snipped a lot
> Let the U.N. Vote > > Wednesday, October 23, 2002; Page A26 > Washington Post Editorial > > NEARLY SIX weeks have passed since President Bush > challenged the United > Nations to act to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. > Yet there has been no > action. Instead, in its attempt to build support in > the U.N. Security > Council, the Bush administration has made a series > of significant concessions. Which I think is both concilatory and prudent; such flexibility subtly demands of allies that they also make some concessions. I just wish that this had been the initial approach, not the latest one. > In effect, President Bush has risked the indefinite > delay or evisceration of his campaign to eliminate > the Iraqi threat in > order to build a broad international coalition and > preserve the authority > of the United Nations. We believe the risk was worth > taking... <snip> > 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... 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... <raises eyebrows> Something the like of which the US has, of course, _never_ done... Certainly no American company has any interest in Iraqi resources. <snip> > ...In fact, even as Mr. Chirac was > proclaiming the sanctity of the > United Nations' authority over war-making, some > 1,000 French troops were > intervening unilaterally to protect French interests > in Ivory Coast; Paris > never dreamed of forging an international coalition > or consulting the Security Council. Now wait just a minute: they went in to protect not only French nationals, but other foreigners - including American citizens - and I believe there was talk of active US support for said action. Those troops _aren't_ there to change the government, either. <snip> > ...What explains this curious double-game? Less high > moral principle, we > suspect, than old-fashioned cash. The Russian oil > giant Lukoil has > contracts with Iraq's current government, and > Russia's government has $8 > billion in Iraqi debt it wants repaid...And French > oil company TotalFinaElf has exclusive > rights to develop the Bin Umar and Manjoon oil > fields. Perhaps these > companies fear that a post-Saddam Iraq government > might not look kindly on > those who supported its former oppressors... <chokes on a salted snack food, and thumps sternum vigorously> Repeat the "raised eyebrows" sentences here, without excusing anyone's poor (or should I say incredibly, stupidly, short-sighted?) behavior. <snip> > We'd add that a veto would also deal a major blow to > the credibility of the > U.N. Mr. Bush has challenged that body to live up to > its principles by > enforcing its own Iraq resolutions... > � 2002 The Washington Post Company As indeed it ought to do. <sigh> Repeat the bass-ackwards sentiment here. Of course, if it turns out that Saddam had anything to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, as implied in another recently posted article, his regime is toast. Snipers And Bombers And...Death Maru __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
