Lunch at the Labs

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?

Posted by mjm at September 17, 2002 09:29 PM