Saturday, November 26, 2005
The U.S.: the U.N.'s Enforcer?
I can’t open up my local Chicago Tribune without being blasted by some tendentious editorial or article. It is truly tiresome.
There is a line of thought out there about the Iraq war: weapons of mass destruction were just one reason for invading. Hussein also was a brutal dictator who was in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
I might easily refute these arguments for invasion but I have the sneaking suspicion that, once these reasons are gone, the warhawks will bring up Hussein’s halitosis and bad eating habits.
First of all, these arguments are made by people who are defending Chimp W. Bush’s invasion. This argument is a red herring argument if used to refute the fact that Bush lied about the WMDs.
Secondly, these arguments are the last refuge of people looking for a reason for something they already decided they wanted to do for other reasons. Saddam Hussein was neither the worst dictator on earth nor the one in defiance of the most Security Council Resolutions.
Our friend Israel leads the pack. Check this quote:
So I am happy that my friends at the Tribune have a new-found concern for enforcing Security Council Resolutions. They might also consider enforcing Security Council resolutions against the genocidal governors of Turkey, who butchered more civilians that Saddam Hussein ever did, and in the same time frame.
Sadly enough, you will never hear about these felons in the pages of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial pages, nor will you hear about them from our President, whose concern for enforcing Security Council resolutions on stubborn nations ends with weak, oil-rich countries that tried to kill his dad.
The U.S. invasion was a violation of international law, if anyone is still keeping track of how many times the United States has violated international law. The saddest part of the editorial comes here:
When my hometown paper floated this shit log a while ago I beat them like a rabid dog in a letter I sent the editor, not that I really expected it to change their views. First of all, “serious consequences” doesn’t mean “invasion.” It meant “serious consequences.” Resolutions on Iraq had been threatening “serious consequences” for years, which led to the embargo of Iraq.
The U.S. knew that no resolutions authorizing an invasion would ever pass the Security Council, especially not with France and Russia holding the veto card. So Bush dove right in anyway and his talking heads said “Serious consequences, invasion, close enough.” That phrase was not “taken world-wide as diplospeak for use of military force.” Or if it was, someone should tell Kofi Annan, who said he considered the invasion of Iraq a violation of the U.N. charter.
Hey, listen. I remember what an irritating little prick Saddam Hussein was. I remember that he killed tens of thousands of his own people with chemical weapons and hundreds of thousands more with sanctions and starvation. But selective enforcement of U.N. sanctions to further geopolitical agendas is not justice, it’s an excuse. The people pulling the strings here are not speaking honestly, and they never have been.
There is a line of thought out there about the Iraq war: weapons of mass destruction were just one reason for invading. Hussein also was a brutal dictator who was in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
I might easily refute these arguments for invasion but I have the sneaking suspicion that, once these reasons are gone, the warhawks will bring up Hussein’s halitosis and bad eating habits.
First of all, these arguments are made by people who are defending Chimp W. Bush’s invasion. This argument is a red herring argument if used to refute the fact that Bush lied about the WMDs.
Secondly, these arguments are the last refuge of people looking for a reason for something they already decided they wanted to do for other reasons. Saddam Hussein was neither the worst dictator on earth nor the one in defiance of the most Security Council Resolutions.
Our friend Israel leads the pack. Check this quote:
During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.
So I am happy that my friends at the Tribune have a new-found concern for enforcing Security Council Resolutions. They might also consider enforcing Security Council resolutions against the genocidal governors of Turkey, who butchered more civilians that Saddam Hussein ever did, and in the same time frame.
Sadly enough, you will never hear about these felons in the pages of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial pages, nor will you hear about them from our President, whose concern for enforcing Security Council resolutions on stubborn nations ends with weak, oil-rich countries that tried to kill his dad.
The U.S. invasion was a violation of international law, if anyone is still keeping track of how many times the United States has violated international law. The saddest part of the editorial comes here:
Several weeks after Bush’s speech, on Nov. 8, 2002, the Security Council—voting unanimously—adopted another resolution, No. 1441, ordering Iraq to disclose its weapons programs—and threatening “serious consequences” if Hussein didn’t comply. That phrase was taken world-wide as diplospeak for use of military force.
When my hometown paper floated this shit log a while ago I beat them like a rabid dog in a letter I sent the editor, not that I really expected it to change their views. First of all, “serious consequences” doesn’t mean “invasion.” It meant “serious consequences.” Resolutions on Iraq had been threatening “serious consequences” for years, which led to the embargo of Iraq.
The U.S. knew that no resolutions authorizing an invasion would ever pass the Security Council, especially not with France and Russia holding the veto card. So Bush dove right in anyway and his talking heads said “Serious consequences, invasion, close enough.” That phrase was not “taken world-wide as diplospeak for use of military force.” Or if it was, someone should tell Kofi Annan, who said he considered the invasion of Iraq a violation of the U.N. charter.
Hey, listen. I remember what an irritating little prick Saddam Hussein was. I remember that he killed tens of thousands of his own people with chemical weapons and hundreds of thousands more with sanctions and starvation. But selective enforcement of U.N. sanctions to further geopolitical agendas is not justice, it’s an excuse. The people pulling the strings here are not speaking honestly, and they never have been.
# posted by BitterHarvest @ 12:29 PM 
