Iraq and the UN.
I am surprised by the positive reaction of our media and our
allies to George Bush's speech to the United Nations. Previously
the administration had floated the idea that Iraq was aiding
terrorism, but no proof was ever made public. Then they claimed
Iraq has (or is about to get) weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
but once again no evidence was put forth. In both cases there
supposedly was evidence but it could not be made public for
"security" reasons. I (and apparently the rest of the world)
don't buy this. When you are going to invade a sovereign nation
that has not attacked you first, it seems to me you should provide
some evidence no matter what. (Just as you would not kill a murderer
while withholding the evidence proving guilt because it would hurt
your sources). Neither of these attempts to garner support for
ousting Saddam Hussein has worked.
Now George Bush's latest reason (presented at the UN) for invading
Iraq is that they failed to obey some (16?) UN resolutions and
suddenly the world says, OK that's a good reason. But how many
other countries have failed to obey UN resolutions? I don't know
for sure, but I suspect Israel is right up there with Iraq. (For
years it has defied resolutions to to quit the West Bank and Gaza.)
What's the significance of a UN resolution other than showing who
has more political muscle to line up the votes? Why have I not
heard even the slightest questioning of this in the media?
Just what is the threat to the United States? Why don't the Arab
countries who should feel the most threatened by their Iraqi neighbor
support a regime change in Iraq?