https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

“What should we use? Harsh language?”

This “Foreign Policy in Focus” page lists UN Security Council Resolutions, demanding some particular action (or ceasing of action), other than those against Iraq, which have also not been complied…

This “Foreign Policy in Focus” page lists UN Security Council Resolutions, demanding some particular action (or ceasing of action), other than those against Iraq, which have also not been complied with.

The point of the page is to note that the US is being disingenuous when it claims to be using UNSCRs to justify military action against Iraq.

My questions would be …

1. Where are the UNSCRs condemning Russia’s actions in Chechnya (or forty years of Soviet tyranny post-WWII), China’s actions in Tibet, or French above-ground nuclear testing in the Pacific. Oh, I forgot — can’t do anything about those particular parties, since those nations all have veto power on the UNSC.

2. Is the point of the page also that UNSCRs are apparently being flouted at will — when they can actually get passed all? I mean, look at the laundry list of resolutions against Israel, Turkey, Morocco, et al. Rather than asking why the Bushies aren’t proposing military action against those nations (ignoring the huge difference between the threats that they pose vs. the Iraqi threat), should we not ask why the UN hasn’t done something about it?

If the idea is that the US is being disingenuous about relying on UNSCRs to justify its actions, then the answer seems to be that UNSCRs are pretty damned worthless, so why should we bother seeking one?

24 view(s)  

2 thoughts on ““What should we use? Harsh language?””

  1. The UN lacks teeth. They should be the ones with all the threat and thunder leveled at Iraq, not the US. They are clearly the ‘wronged’ parties. Not the US. Sigh.

    I believe that countries should abide by the papers they sign.

    I believe a slap down may be neccessary, but it’s just not proper form for the frat-boy nation to deliver it.

    Stupid utopian that I am.

    And if the UN moved – many nations as one, and not the US alone, then the whole of the hornets nest may not join and rise as one angry entity… (as in: What is with Kuwait? anyone? anyone?)

  2. What, a couple of (apparently al-Qa’eda) shootists constitute a hornet’s nest?

    When the US led the UN-backed coalition against Iraq in ’91, there were warnings that the Middle East would rise up against the Western invaders (and their local Arabic supporters).

    When the US led the assault on Afghanistan, there were warnings that the Muslim world would rise up against it and its few partners.

    I don’t think any hornet’s nest is going to arise from a US invasion of Iraq, if it comes to that, that hasn’t already been stirred up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *