I wish they'd just admit they don't care
Feb. 15th, 2003 03:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI think what bugs me most about the current U.N. Security Council debates is the way the anti-war countries pretend that they care what happens in Iraq. Why did they ever pass the last resolution if they weren't willing to back it up? Why didn't they just say in the first place, "No, we don't care if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not"? Why won't they just admit it doesn't matter to them?
I could respect that. If France said, "Look, Iraq hasn't invaded any foreign countries in 10 years, and we just don't care what happens to Iraq's own people. We're not worried about 'potential threats'. We're not going to authorize a premptive strike on them. Period", then I could see their point. You could argue pretty persuasively that war isn't justified without clear evidence of intent on the part of the opposing party. And the mere existance of chemical weapons or nuclear bombs doesn't necessarily indicate intent. Is a general hostility and lack of cooperation worth a war? Maybe not.
But that's not their position. No, their position is "Well, yes, I know we said that they had 60 days comply, and I know they haven't really complied, but let's give them another 60 days anyway."
Why make a threat that you will not back up?
UN Resolution 1411 was fighting words. If they did not think the cause worth fighting over, they should not have authorized it.
I could respect that. If France said, "Look, Iraq hasn't invaded any foreign countries in 10 years, and we just don't care what happens to Iraq's own people. We're not worried about 'potential threats'. We're not going to authorize a premptive strike on them. Period", then I could see their point. You could argue pretty persuasively that war isn't justified without clear evidence of intent on the part of the opposing party. And the mere existance of chemical weapons or nuclear bombs doesn't necessarily indicate intent. Is a general hostility and lack of cooperation worth a war? Maybe not.
But that's not their position. No, their position is "Well, yes, I know we said that they had 60 days comply, and I know they haven't really complied, but let's give them another 60 days anyway."
Why make a threat that you will not back up?
UN Resolution 1411 was fighting words. If they did not think the cause worth fighting over, they should not have authorized it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hypocrisy wins votes, though, both at home and abroad
Date: 2003-02-19 08:26 am (UTC)The question of whether we should care about the potential threat posed by Iraq or the way that Saddam Hussein treats his own people is a legitimate one. Reasonable thinking people could take either side of that debate.
The goal of positions like France's (and those of many Democrats) is not to target the people who have an opinion on that question. Anyone who has thought about this with care already knows if she favors war.
This position is aimed at the people who want to have their cake without paying for it. By signing on to the goal of disarming Iraq without agreeing to any means which are likely to be sufficient they can claim that they want the same thing as the warmongers to, but want to achieve it in a better way.
An even more cynical interpretation of France's position is also available: Inspectors are a means of "containing" Iraq. However, inspectors will only be allowed to be present while the US has forces sufficient to threaten an invasion of Iraq in the region. By drawing out inspections, France manages to tie up US forces and make the US seem impotent while drawing world attention to the UN Security council where France has more influence. Allowing a war to occur, in contrast, would give the US nearly full control of the situation since US troops would be occupying Iraq. This would relegate France to a secondary role.