> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: US out of UN? > > > On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power, > that is, with rights as individual states to prevent super-state > action, agreed > > ... that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its > obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 > (1991), ... > > [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] > > and also agreed to remind the Government of Iraq > > ... that the [UN Security] Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that > it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued > violations of its obligations .... > > [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441] > > However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not > going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the > `serious consequences' of the resolution.
Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that the disagreement is over *when* the serious consequences are due? > Moreover, it appears that the US government will decide that without a > follow-up the other major countries in the UN will have made the UN > irrelevant, and will withdraw (or `suspend' itself) from it. The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to gain its consent? We're hardly acting as though it is irrelevant. > The US government will decide to act as the `sheriff' on its own, > will invade Iraq, and, after what may well be a dreadful war, produce > evidence that the Iraqi government has been as cruel as depicted. It will? I thought it already says it has produced such evidence? > US President Bush will point out that pacifists world-wide, Democratic > Senators and others in the US, and people in France prefer to support > rather than oppose a cruel dictatorship. Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being labeled "supporters" of the current regime in Iraq. I'm not going to shoot Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him. Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of positions one can take? I'm not ready to rush into war, but I am resigned to the reality that it may be the best thing to do right now. And to the fact that we simply cannot know for certain what will happen if we don't -- or if we do. I certainly don't want to see another 9/11, but there is a limit to what freedoms I'd support sacrificing to try to prevent terrorism. I sure as hell don't support the Iraqi government and absolutely support its downfall. Nobody, absolutely nobody on this planet is certain what the best way to bring that about is. Whatever we do, we'll be stuck with that decision and won't ever know how things would have gone otherwise. Either way, war now or international pressure now (with the ongoing possibility of war later) is a judgement call, not an objective decision. I don't think we'll make our best judgement when we're using language that paints our countrymen into a corner. Calling me a supporter of a cruel dictatorship is akin to me calling you and Bush bloodthirsty warmongers. It is ridiculous, divisive hyperbole that divides us at a time when we should be striving to find a workable compromise that delivers our best strategy for bringing about change in Iraq. Okay, now I have *that* off my chest. I think I'm more grumpy than usual, after having my intestines cleaned out over the last 24 hours and inspected today. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
