Reasoned rebuttal.
Heh...imagine this scenario: Hans Blix finds nasties. His cushy UN job is over, and he is the focus of some powerful people's undiluted hatred, and also essentially takes the burden of declaring war on Iraq.\r\n\r\n
So, are you saying that Blix is venal at best, and mendacious at worst? Or what? Like I said, nice lampoon...
\r\n\r\nNow look at the UN, basically since the beginning it has been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way to shut them up. Then the human rights council is led by Libya, and the weapons disarmament council is headed by...Iraq. Now who still thinks the UN isn't a complete joke? And you trust their investigator to risk international hatred by taking extra care to root out any WMD?\r\n\r\n
And now here you are talking about the big bad UN doing exactly what you were just doing above wrt Blix. Nothing quite like a little drive-by character assassination to make yourself feel better, eh?
\r\n\r\nIf you think the UN has "basically ... been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way", then you have a very narrow view of the world. The UN was the organisation that got 100% behind the US in Gulf War I... was that them "standing up and swearing at the US ... for a few billion dollars"? How about when the UN set up the WTO, at US request, to form a single venue to manage trade disputes between nations? Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? How about when the UN took on North Korea in the 1950s? Sure, there were plenty of Americans there, but despite what you saw on MASH there were a lot of Canadian, Australians, French, and other troops there too. Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"?
\r\n\r\nWhen the US decided to go to war in Afghanistan a year or so ago, was the UN all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? We went to war with you in Afghanistan, and stayed there (there are over a thousand Canadian troops in Afghanistan right now) despite the fact that some of your National Air Guard people dropped a bomb on a bunch of the Patricia's doing night exercises and are going to get off with a slap on the wrist. Was that about us "standing up and swearing at the US"? There was barely a peep in Canada about going to war in Afghanistan. It was very clear to us why you wanted to do it and why it had to be done; bringing the people who did 9/11 to justice is worth almost any price. However, this war is not about 9/11, no matter what your media is saying. This is naked power politics taken to the extreme of war, and that's all. And that's not OK.
\r\n\r\nThe first victim of Imperial Rome was Republican Rome. The second victim of Imperial Athens was Athens. Read the papers at [link|http://www.newamericancentury.org|http://www.newamericancentury.org], take a look at the signatories of the statement of intent, look up the names of the Bush cabinet, and do some thinking. Maybe you'll understand why most of the world thingks US motives in this war are a little suspicious; because what's true for Iraq today could be true for many other countries tomorrow.
\r\n\r\nBecause your little lampoon above certainly displayed no thought whatsoever; just a facile grasp of cheap potshots.
\r\n