There has been...
...a decisive show of support given to France because they are "representing the will of their people" by holding against the US.
I attributed that belief to someone here that didn't hold it...so I recanted.
There seems to be an equal amount of derision being thrown around based on this Huffington piece and others about the US motivation being "purely financial"...with a complete ignorance of the fact that 1) France agreed to the same embargo terms 2) they have and continue to violate those terms with materials that don't even qualify for exempt status under "oil for food" and 3) because of #2 they have and are at much greater financial risk with Saddma's removal
An equal argument leveled against France, (they're in it for the money)however...doesn't seem to be acceptable. Its "France-bashing" and thats "bad form".
It is not a "new world order" argument. I >am< derisive of the UN...but NOT what it stands for. Its principles are good...its application of those principles is spotty...and its procedural inadequacies are about to kill it outright. If there is to be a "new world order" under the UN banner...they MUST enforce their own resolutions. Allowing a rogue nation to play you like a fiddle does nothing for your credibility as an organization.
The "Star Trek" dream of a unified government of earth isn't a bad thing. Accepting it as an eventual reality is a stretch (as you apparently agree).
Its the willingness to be supportive of one while remaining blissfully ignorant of reality while damning another with the exact same reality that bothers me.
Better explanation?
