George W. Bush has offered the United Nations two choices. Either enough Security Council members can be bribed and bullied into acquiescing to the invasion of Iraq the Americans have been so consistently threatening, or the Security Council can refuse to give him and chum Tony Blair the resolution the latter so desperately wants—and Bush will go ahead and invade anyway.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (22)Page 1 of 1 pagesWhile I believe your article is shortsighted and avoids an abundance of historical indicators, it is one of the better arguments for your liberal position.
The Bush administration is wise to avoid the creation of permanent alliances with any country. Foreign entanglements harmed America in the 90’s.
I’ve travelled abroad in a number of different personal and professional roles. The world opinion of America is not nearly as negative as the media portrays. Mathematically, most polls I have seen are unreliable indicators and rely far to heavily are metropolitan areas where opinions are dictated by fashion rather than by reason.
Posted by ed on Mar 15, 2003 at 2:24 AM As for the wisdom of alliances out of tradition see George Washington’s Farewell Address.
As for strong military allies who are still on our side I think the t-shirt a friend of mine saw in Israel says it all, “Don’t worry America, Israel is still on your side.” On that note see Genesis 12:3 which reads “I will bless those who bless you (the Hebrew nation) and I will curse him who curses you.”
Even murdering 42 million babies has yet to bring the wrath of God down on America. I attribute His mercy mostly to our steady support of Christ’s nation, Israel.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 15, 2003 at 11:02 AM Ian Williams said: “Similarly, the notion that each state is equal is a polite fiction. Not even in the most idealist dreams of its planners did anyone think that Nauru, population 15,000, was really equal to China. Hence the Security Council with its 15 members, five of whom are permanent and hold veto power. The veto is very undemocratic. So is reality.”
If democracy means ‘man’s rule over man, independent of God’ (Yes? No?), then what we are looking at here on planet earth ‘is’ democracy. That, I’m sorry to report, is reality.
Democracy is rule by man, whatever else you may want to say about it. Theocracy is rule by God. Lots of folks refer to various democratic regimes as ‘theocratic’. Lots of folks say lots of silly things. You can say a thing is so, but that doesn’t make it so. Bush can say he supports the Prince of Peace, but that doesn’t make it so.
Your United Nations is perfectly democratic - and temporary. It’s just another false messiah. It’s time will come, but not before it fulfills Bible prophecy and, in some fashion, identifies organized, established religion as a source of serious conflict too often and in too many places.
Posted by Rick Battams on Mar 15, 2003 at 5:49 PM Well, I am afraid the world opinion of America is even more negative as the media portrays. The Bush administration does not seem to be that wise to me. America should think of the future in modern society and stop behaving like a teenager after few tequilas.
Posted by Jana on Mar 16, 2003 at 3:26 PM You touch up on the clear point: Bush cannot go at it alone, and we would be a fool to do so. The world is againest the war, and a handful of partial allies isnt going to help us in 20 years when we’re asking favors and we truly need them.
Posted by Nate on Mar 16, 2003 at 6:26 PM I find it hard to agree with the observation that international opinion of the US is not as bad as the media would have Americans believe. In fact, the US media considerably understates it. I have travelled extensively in Europe on many occasions - and lived there for all of 1995 - and I found that even European rightwingers take a surprisingly dim view of the US. Perhaps Europeans are just too polite to say what they think to Americans - perhaps they are not so reticent with an Australian.
Posted by James Paterson on Mar 17, 2003 at 4:28 AM With all due respect to the blind patriotism of our American friends, perhaps everyone should read the article printed by Harper’s Magazine in its November 2002 issue: COOL WAR - ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, by Joy Gordon.
If nothing else, we will be more informed about the UN and its key members.
Democratically speaking, you’d still be free to retain or change your opinions ;-)
Posted by Naushad on Mar 17, 2003 at 5:12 PM I have been living in a university town in Sweden for the past year and have had many political discussions with young Swedes. While almost all oppose US military action in Iraq, they almost always recognize the difference between the US government and the American people. Further, after learning of the real voting situation that falsley deemed Bush the president (including the map of which states Gore won the electoral college), almost all realize that the government is basically a rogue institution now, detached from its citizenry.
Posted by shawn on Mar 17, 2003 at 9:45 PM The only “remedy” for Bush’s imperial fantasy is the lack of economic strength support it. There simply is no unified political will to pay the price in blood and treasure.
Posted by A. J. Travland on Mar 18, 2003 at 3:39 AM Nate writes: Bush cannot go at it alone, and we would be a fool to do so.
Alone???: This is a partial list of countries who have committed troops to the conflict.
Britain, Australia, Jordan, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, the Czech Republic and Germany.This is a partial list of countries who support America diplomatically or militarily but not with troops in the immediate area: Spain, Italy, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Norway, Bulgaria, Portugal, Croatia, Romania, Japan, and Georgia.
Interestingly Germany has troops on the ground in Kuwait, but does not support us diplomatically. Playing both sides of the wheel those Germans. Kind of like the Democrats who voted yes on the Resolution and then have spent the last five months trashing the impending effort, alla Senators Daschle, Clinton, Edwards, etc.
Note: To his credit Rep. Gephardt voted yes and stuck by his vote.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 18, 2003 at 8:43 AM Shawn writing from Sweden states that regarding the understanding of Swedes toward the political unity of Americans for President Bush’s leadership, “almost all realize that the government is basically a rogue institution now, detached from its citizenry”
Detached from its citizenry???: How then Shawn do you account for the 71% approval for war with Iraq and the lower mid sixty approval of Americans for how the President has been handling the situation - meaning that Americans are to the ‘right’ of the President on Iraq and feel he has been too diplomatic.
Thankfully, though, we now have a President who leads rather than sways in the mobacracy wind.
Remember when support for the war in America was in the low 60’s just three months ago?
When President Hussein is gone every two bit dictator in the world will be on notice, support terrorism (or look the other way as it festers) and the same fate awaits you.
Hussein is the perfect tyrant to be made an example for the rest of the misfits.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 18, 2003 at 8:54 AM I’ll betcha a cold frosty brew that a month from now opinions on both sides of this issue will have changed drastically. The very minute Saddam uses chem/bio weapons, he implicates himself in lies dating back to the end of the first Gulf War. Even if he doesn’t use them, finding a warehouse full of them is an equal justification of this horrible outcome.
Posted by ROCKTIME on Mar 18, 2003 at 4:23 PM Let’s cut the nonsense in regards to Dubya’s so-called “coalition of the willing.” Try instead, “Coalition of the Opportunistic and Greedy.” These relatively few countries lining up support are really lining up at the trough for the handout Dubya is only too quick to give them. Israel alone stands to receive $15 billion from this excursion. That’s in addition to the unexcusable, unfathomable $3 billion per year we already funnel into their war machine. Who’s supporting terrorists now? Ask the family of the 23 year-old American protestor who was literally bulldozed to death two days ago, or the Palestinian families who lost babies in the latest IDF slaughter. Yes, the suicide bombers are horrific and inexcusable, but the Israelis themselves aren’t far behind. And let’s not forget who in the region truly has his finger on the nuclear button: it is Sharon, NOT Hussein.
And as far as troops are concerned, don’t bet the farm on promises, we’ll be lucky to even get Brit support after the Labor Party is done with Blair & Co. Whatever troops are offered up by any country will be mostly symbolic and token at best. We are sticking our neck out, destroying any semblance of international “democracy” and becoming everything the U.S. is supposedly against. Because in the end, as Dubya told the world last night, this is an issue of “will” and the removal of a rival world leader, albiet a horrible, evil man. The world stage is no place for personal agendas or vendettas.
Posted by Gary on Mar 18, 2003 at 5:53 PM Ya right dream on when in history did the people of an imperial nation
stop there goverments barbarian behavior.Makes them feel big and tuff.
Posted by A Howard on Mar 20, 2003 at 4:09 AM Gary states that we are destroying international “democracy” by attacking Iraq.
Gary, what international democracy? There is no such thing. The world, though you might have it otherwise, is made up of nearly 200 sovereign states. Thankfully most of these countries are Constitutional Republics following on the US model or Parlimentary Republics or Parlimentary Monarchies following on the British Palimentary Monarchy model.
Britain and later the United States have been the principal exporters of freedom for the last 200 years. The latest benefactor of this export is Afghanistan where lots of booming is going on now, economic booming! Typically, now, on any given day several new businesses open in Kabul. As the economic center of the Afghan nation gains strenth admidsts its new found freedom the hinterlands will follow. Look to Russia and Moscow for a similar pattern where now two years in a row a Federal government surplus has existed. Russian officials now speak of lowering the nation’s 13% flat tax adopted only in 2001.
To think that the US model (or British) has been a drain (or will in Iraq be a drain) on freedom, economic or political, is to deny the self-evident truth and historical record.
By the way: regarding taxes, Biblically the prophet Samuel stated a 10% rate is appropriate. At the time of the impending Egyptian famine Joseph imposed a 20% tax. Both were flat rates. Both brought about incredible wealth for Israel and Egypt respectively.
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 20, 2003 at 6:10 AM Gary speaks of the US as being a member of the “Coalition of the Opportunistic and Greedy.”
No, Gary, a typical member of that coalition would France, which was hoping while racking in cheap oil contracts that the alligator would eat it last.
And now the French jump on the bandwagon offering their assistance with chemical weapons attacks. Wasn’t it Mr De Villapen who stated that the Iraqi’s had no WMD’s???
Pathetic!!!
Posted by Carl Snodgrass on Mar 20, 2003 at 6:15 AM The French position is at the least, consistent. They never said there were no WMD. They said that none had yet been found. That is, they waited for solid evidence before passing judgement, in the tradition of common sense and jurisprudence. Therefore, if Iraq were to use such weapons, it would be very obvious proof that it possessed them.
As far as material motives go, French companies already have oil contracts in Iraq (through the UN’s oil-for-food program) and are (rightly) suspicious that the oil-friendly Bush administration will consider the new Iraqi government’s debts and contracts null and void instead of continuing them. Such a decision would set a dangerous precedent, as new regimes almost always assume the debts and contracts of their predecessors. Guess what countries are exceptions to this practice: Cuba, Iran, Libya… do we really want to join a club with them?Most people who have been “anti-war” are not pacifists, but were hoping that Bush & co. would at least apply the same principles used by other government groups concerning evidence and judgement. They are also aware that this situation has ramifications that go well beyond Iraq itself. The discourse coming from warhawks shows that they are not aware. This is no surprise, given that most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass about anything outside their own county, much less in a foreign country, unless the TV bombards them with information that they absolutely must know.
Posted by Andrew M. on Mar 20, 2003 at 11:56 AM Gary has his finger on the pulse. It is good to see that even with the brainwashing inflicted by the moronic extreme right wing media some people can see through it. Being anti-war is not being anti-american but the bushies want you to think it is. Extremist breed extremists, and with the bin ladens on one side and the bushies on the other, the world can expect a rough ride in this decade.
Posted by Hugh Garse on Mar 20, 2003 at 4:11 PM By “coalition of the opportunistic/greedy” I am referring to the nations that have jumped on board with Dubya in order to blackmail aid, more aid, or actual cash payments in return for their “service.” Turkey is a great example, a few weeks ago through their own DEMOCRATIC PROCESS they flatly denied the U.S. the use of Turkish soil to launch attacks against Iraq.
However, seeing countries like Israel rake in promises of literally billions in aid and cash must’ve opened some eyes and ledgers, because now they’re “reconsidering” their position. Interesting, isn’t it?
As for the U.N., as we go, really - so does the U.N. We are by far it’s most powerful member militarily and economically speaking, what does it say about a political body’s integrity when it’s most powerful member decides which rules it will follow and which ones it won’t? I sincerely hope this isn’t the form of “democracy” Dubya plans to bring to the good people of Iraq.
I do believe the U.S. to be “safe” from a military perspective - this country spends much more in one year on defense than the EU countries combined. But if we continue to alienate them, how long before they realize their true potential as a world/political force? Can the U.S. really afford to have the EU impose constrictive tarriffs on U.S. exports? Or a potential embargo? I don’t suggest these things are in the near future, but they’re possibilities and made even more real by the bumbling, idiotic brand of “diplomacy” practiced by Dubya & Co. The world is moving towards a much more unified and global political platform, and Dubya & Co. are left in the dust.
Speaking of international diplomacy, I would also like to know if we’ll be attacking France and Israel after this. France apparrently has been funneling banned weapons parts from China through Syria, a definite no-no according to the U.N. And Israel is a master of U.N. opposition, they’ve been in defiance for over 40 years. Is the U.S. going to effect “regime change” in these countries, too?
Finally, I’m no pacifist. In fact, the real reason to remove Hussein from his mortal coil is not for oil or WMD - but for his long-suffering people. However, my view is that this is an international matter and should NOT be dealt with on a unilateral basis. Nevertheless, I for one will not be shedding tears for Hussesin when/if his lifeless and worthless hide is picked from the wreckage of whatever rock he is hiding under.
Posted by Gary on Mar 20, 2003 at 6:42 PM Yeah, Rocktime, a warehouse full of biological weapons Rumsfeld sold them when they were fighting Iran.
They won’t use them, they’ll chew them apart in urban warfare, which will be horrible for everyone.
But, if my city was invaded by an army with an unjust cause, I’d probably do the same thing.
Posted by neil on Mar 30, 2003 at 10:11 AM Someone should nuke the US so that we can live the rest of our days in peace.
God those retards deserve it, they have it comming one way or the other.
Posted by Nick on Mar 22, 2004 at 7:41 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by Bernard on Mar 15, 2003 at 2:23 AM 
Also by Ian Williams
- Bolton vs. United Nations
Bush's mad cop–bad cop ruse - Bushs War Against the Military
- Deserter at the Helm!
- The Sorrows of Dogma
- Re-United Nations
U.S. admits U.N. role necessary for laying the electoral groundwork in Iraq - Not So Special
Protests question Bush-Blair lovefest
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
