Saturday 1 March 2003

U.S. Presses U.N. Members on Iraq Vote [AP World News] I know this is an old article, but it is nonetheless still apposite ? an perhaps even more so in light of the vote in the Turkish Parliament. Indeed, first reports on television here were that the Turks had approved the presence of US troops, and I was desperately upset when I heard this. That something as important as this should come down to horse-trading in billions of Dollars sums up what the whole US mentality is: money is all, we control the money, so as we say or you won't get a cut of the pie.       Indeed, this arrogant supposition that anything can be bought is one of the prime reasons for worldwide anti-Americanism. The sanctions against Iraq are trumpeted as having been put in place by the United Nations, whereas we all know that this was yet another instance of the US manipulating the UN for its own purposes. And this is precisely what it is doing now with all this lobbying for support for 'another UN Resolution'. Who will ever know what promises were already made behind the scenes in order to get the first resolution passed, and still they behave in the same high-handed, threatening and arrogant manner, targeting Mexico and the African members of the Security Council for special attention. Two quotes from this article are of concern: (1) 'The order from the White House was to use 'all diplomatic means necessary', another US diplomat said. 'And that means everything.' and (2) 'But Gaspar Martins of Angola said the vote-jockeying was part of the game of international diplomacy.'       Whatever about the 'every means necessary', it is sad to hear anyone refer to all this as a 'game'. After all, these are matters which are not being played out in isolation. All this maneuvering is intended to legitimise a military attack on a sovereign country. How can any resolution arrived at by these means seriously deserve any respect? 10:50:13 PM  Your view

Iraq Begins Destroying Missiles. Under the supervision of inspectors, Iraq crushed four of the short range missiles that the U.N. said were illegal. By Neil Macfarquhar. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] Surely this is good, positive news. Hopefully it will serve to strengthen the resolve of France, Germany, Russia and China to oppose a new UN resolution along the confrontational lines proposed by the US and the UK. First reactions from Mr Blair do not seem promising, of course. As always it's a case of changing the rules each time Iraq meets a demand. Dubyoo's latest addition of a new argument in favour of attacking Iraq (ousting Saddam will be good for the Middle East peace process) is yet another instance of trotting out more and more 'reasons' why a 'war' is necessary. Let's recap: first it was 'regime change', then it became 'he's failed to honour UN resolutions', then it was 'he's harbouring terrorists', then 'he's a tyrant who's killing his own people' and now it's part of a process to bring peace to the Middle East!       Do these supposedly intelligent men in charge of government in Washington and London not realise that constantly shifting the goalposts in this manner does absolutely nothing to increase public support for military action? I spotted a headline on the front page of the London Times this morning referring to Tony Blair using the 'appeasement' word again. I presume this is an attempt to draw comparisons between Saddam and Hitler and to work on emotive memories of World War II. For God's sake: there is absolutely no comparison between the two situations! 10:28:42 PM  Your view

Disturbing quote from Pentagon Official. I haven't caught up with the News Aggregator yet today, so I don't yet know if a New York Times article about the Turkish Parliament's vote against basing US troops in the country has made it to the list. I found it during one of my regular News checks. If this is accurate, then it speaks volumes for the high-handed attitude of the Bush administration. Here it is in all its infamy: A senior Pentagon official said today that the Turkish Parliament's vote would not alter the military's plans to try to stage tanks and other heavy equipment for the Fourth Infantry Division through Turkey into northern Iraq. "I don't think it's that big a deal," the Pentagon official said. "As Secretary Rumsfeld likes to say, democracies aren't very tidy."       What on earth does 'democracies aren't very tidy' mean? 10:12:04 PM  Your view

		© Copyright 2003 Jim MacCormaic . Last update: 21/03/2003; 12:59:45 am .