UN Security Council:What are they really saying IYO?
Well...I'm half working and half goofing off with CNN talking in the background. The UN Security Council is talking back and forth... I asked myself..What are they really saying? They are basically saying IMO that Saddam is a great guy and as long as we get rid of his missles that Iraq will no longer be a safe haven for terrorists, Saddam will apollogize and not start talking smack as soon as the millitary forces around him leave, and everyone is one big happy family...sheesh...I don't like Goergie Porgie or war for that matter, but I guess its nice to know that all those other countries out there have a clue.. They talk about reconciling differences even after Blix and Albaradi have said Iraq hasn't totally cooperated. You know full well that all those small countries on the Security Council would come crying like babies if they were invaded....I guess its OK for dictators to exist and kill their own people, as long as they don't have WMD or attack other neighbors...and Mexico has no room to talk...just take a look at what has happened/does in Chiapas, on of their poorest states. There are untold number of the indigenous peoples there that have been killed by the police and millitary force just for wanting and protesting for a better life. I'm done now...just some thoughts that make it hard to not be in support of war.
District Overbeer of the "Less Saddam and more Sodom" class
I cannot put my mind around the credulity that is being expressed by these diplomats. Therefore, my take is that what they're really saying is that they don't want the US superpower demonstrating its might and making them all feel small.
Also, the French and Germans are worrying about their oil supply. They hope that if they keep pacifying Saddam he won't unleash his fury on THEM, the hell with keeping the rest of the world (including Iraqui citizens) safe from the evil dictator.
I'm not looking forward to war, either, but I think it incredibly naive to think that if Saddam's weapons programs go forward he won't be emboldened to wreak more havoc in his immediate region or elsewhere. And as long as there is a market for Iraqui oil by the oil-starved European industrialized nations, he will have the means to continue his weapons program and to support terrorist organizations either overtly, or covertly, allowing them safe haven in his country.
To me, Saddam is this generation's Hitler -- not that he's practicing religious genocide (although he has done that as well) but in the fact that so many are willing to overlook the evil he does as long as it's "not in our backyard." Well, in the late 1930's people finally woke up that Hitler wasn't a danger just to Jews or non-Aryans, but to all of Europe and, really, civilization. Remember that many Jews, even, said to themselves "It can't get any worse, we'll be okay if we just hold on a little longer" as they were gradually stripped of their political rights and their human dignity. So it seems to be with world opinion of Saddam -- as long as he's only practicing genocide on the Kurds (after all, where is the large Kurdish population in Germany, France, China or Russia?), as long as he's only violating the rights of certain Muslims, as long as his regime is only torturing and brutalizing Iraqui men, women and children, why should we interfere?
That's what I think these diplomats are saying. They're looking out for number one, and that ain't America!