Reading the news
Mar. 12th, 2003 02:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaktwosAhh, lunch. One of life's simple pleasures. I was reading www.salon.com while I grazed upon a tuna sandwich and some chips.
This article is interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html. It discusses the extent of bribery that the U.S. must exert on various countries to try and get a vote on the security council.
What's particularly haunting is Ari Fleischer's comment of, "There are many ways to build a coalition. The Security Council is but one of them."
Clearly, the rest of the world doesn't see our threats to Iraq as mainly human rights based. Nor do they feel the threat of germ warfar like Bush does. If this impending war served more interests than just that of the United States, I feel certain that they would jump on board. After all, we're not asking for troop support, really. If the cause is right and good for the greater population, what a cherry deal to support the U.S. But alas, it is not that simple.
Any of you pro-war zealots care to comment?
This article is interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html. It discusses the extent of bribery that the U.S. must exert on various countries to try and get a vote on the security council.
What's particularly haunting is Ari Fleischer's comment of, "There are many ways to build a coalition. The Security Council is but one of them."
Clearly, the rest of the world doesn't see our threats to Iraq as mainly human rights based. Nor do they feel the threat of germ warfar like Bush does. If this impending war served more interests than just that of the United States, I feel certain that they would jump on board. After all, we're not asking for troop support, really. If the cause is right and good for the greater population, what a cherry deal to support the U.S. But alas, it is not that simple.
Any of you pro-war zealots care to comment?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-14 02:56 am (UTC)Nonetheless, Saddam is being pressured because he's committed his own "crimes." And perhaps some don't consider what he's doing to be tantamount to criminal behavior. I do. I'm sorry, but I can't look at someone who's potentially holding the end of the human race in his hands in any other manner.
And what exactly do you suggest? Should we focus our aggressions on North Korea instead? Or on Iran? Or is the UN going to hit them with sanctions and embargoes as well? And what good is that going to do?
Let's face it. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. We live in the greatest country (at least from the perspective of looking at the lives of its people) in the world. Our omelet is protecting what's ours. The eggs are people (and let's face it, it really IS just people, and not entire countries) that are threatening what's ours. It's hard to look at people and say, "Let's just be friends," when New York and L.A. just aren't there anymore.
Personally, I would rather not see war happen because war itself is a pointless endeavor. But in reality, what options are we left with? What else CAN we do at this point? We've put both ourselves and Saddam into a situation in which there is no trust. And when you have reached a point at which you can no longer trust someone or thing, you excise it. It's unfortunate, but that's kinda how it goes.
Peace.