A rchive Date
[ 10-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.N ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
Crunch time
Unless Saddam bugs out the Yanks are buggin' in
By PETER WORTHINGTON - Toronto Sun
March 10, 2003
Today the UN Security Council meets and tomorrow may even vote on whether to support or reject America's war against Saddam Hussein.
It may even urge another "last-chance" delay of a week for Saddam to disarm and quit.
As well as "complete and total" disarmament in Iraq, President George W. Bush now insists on a "regime change." So unless Saddam bugs out - the Yanks are bugging in.
It's now crunch time for the Security Council - support the Americans or become irrelevant.
Contrary to some opinion, war may be a "no-lose" issue for President Bush.
Saddam has insisted for years that he has no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and no bio-chemical weapons. All supposedly destroyed.
Countries like Canada, France, Germany and Russia say until there's evidence Saddam has such weapons, there should not be war.
If, when the Americans attack, Saddam unleashes bio-chemical weapons he insists he doesn't have, that will constitute irrevocable proof that he was lying, deceiving, planning mischief, and that the U.S. was right to attack. Any use of illegal weaponry by Saddam will prove Bush was right that war was not only justified but necessary.
If the Americans win easily and no illegal weapons are used and joy erupts on the streets of Baghdad, Bush will be justified for eliminating the world's most sadistic and homicidal tyrant.
Waited too long
Many believe Bush has delayed too long - that he should have acted sooner and faster rather than endure the painful, even pathetic charade of trying to instill spine and substance in the Security Council.
Bush's dad didn't need UN approval to attack Iraq on behalf of Kuwait; nor did Reagan when he liberated Grenada and Panama; nor did Mrs. Thatcher when she drove the Argies out of the Falklands. During the Cold War the Soviet Union ignored the UN when it invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan.
The UN is a talking machine, not an entity of courage and action.
At last Thursday's ludicrous Security Council meeting, Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov even predicted "peace . . . in our time," and the gaunt Dominique de Villepin, France's Foreign Minister said "war solves nothing."
Does Ivanov think using Neville Chamberlain's infamous assessment of Munich will inspire confidence? Doesn't Villepin realize that war solves lots of things - like Hitler, to whom his country once surrendered? Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a priority.
Does anyone ever wonder why the UN always stresses weapons of mass destruction as reasons for curtailing Saddam, and not his crimes against humanity, like impaling suspects on butcher's hooks, or torturing children to get their fathers to confess? All vintage Stalin, all valid reasons for ridding the civilized world of such a despot.
Saddam's abuses
Sad to say, the reason Saddam's humanitarian abuses are rarely mentioned in the UN as reasons for his removal is that many member states indulge in similar violations, albeit less horrific than Saddam's methods of control.
The U.S. invented "humanitarian bombing" in the Kosovo war, supposedly because Serbs were oppressing Kosovar Albanians - who in turn were killing Serbs to provoke reprisals that would lure America into their war of liberation.
Saddam's crimes against humanity alone are sufficient reason to be rid of him, yet UN members shy from that one. So long as he wins decisively, Bush won't lose when he goes to war against Saddam on behalf of the Iraqi people and humanity. That's his only gamble - and forget the anti-war protesters: There's never been a winning war that wasn't a popular war.
Take care you human shields in Baghdad!
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA))]
|