Re: UN wants press banned from inspections
>Just like they didn't in 1950 and 1990.
>The UN does not want war. That should be clear.
And you can put it in the ground
Stir it all around
Dig it with a hoe
It'll make your flowers grow
>The government of the USA is certainly the MAJOR villain here, but the
>It seems that the real villain here is the US. It doesn't appear that anyone
>in the US diplomatic staff was willing to give Iraq a break in 90. If Kuwait
>had been stealing our oil you can bet we would have gone after it. The US is
>disingenuously behind the scenes keeping everyone including Americans in the
>dark and paying off other countries. It is no doubt us that made a stink
>about the chlorine and kept it from them through the UN. I'm surprised we
>let them have oxygen. That has to be used in the development of nuclear
>weapons as well.
United Nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security
Council, are in complicity with this, and if, as in 1990, they can be
cajoled or coerced into sanctioning any kind of hostile action against
Iraq (as they are already doing with the murderous sanctions that continue
to kill Iraqi citizens by malnutrition and preventable disease, mostly
young children), then they are equally guilty in whatever the Bush
During the Cold War, when the USSR and China had an objectively anti-
imperialist foreign policy (even if subjectively this was motivated
by imperial ambitions of some people in their governments), the United
Nations had some role as a neutral arbitrator in world events. Now that
the USA is the world's only superpower, and almost every other nation
on earth has an Uncle Tom government to that superpower (with the
exceptions of Iraq, Iran, and People's Korea, the so-called "axis of
evil"), the United Nations is objectively incapable of being anything
BUT a puppet of imperialism. It would, at best, be extreme naivete
to believe that the UN is some kind of neutral moderator in this day
The game the Bush Administration and the Security Council are playing
with Iraq is quite an old one, and I'm surprised you don't recognize
it. It's called "good cop/bad cop". It goes more or less like this:
Bad Cop (Bush): Iraq, your government needs to be overthrown,
and if you don't surrender voluntarilly, we'll
bomb you and invade you.
Good Cop (UN): My partner has a terrible temper, and tends to
go overboard. I don't want to invade you, but
if you don't let our spies in to trample your
sovereignty and pass on information to the
United States like they did in 1998, I'll have
to turn you over to him.
In the end they are both cops and have the goal of smashing the rights
of Iraq, People's Korea, and any other country that defies imperialism,
and both need to be resisted. Death to the United Nations, the most
perfidious criminal enterprise in history! They alone are the reason
New York City deserves to be our American Hiroshima.
>I like your analogy, but, if the UN is being the good cop it is because ofReally makes no difference whether the UN goes along willingly or not.
>us and we bully them in to it, I believe.
If it can't resist imperialist pressure, it's no good.
>Van der Heusen of the Nation magazine said that the UN resolution was asEven if the Security Council somehow develops a backbone and says "no",
>much about controlling the US as it was about dealing with Iraq. Many UN
>nations said there was no hidden trigger and that the US had to go back to
>the UN first. We'l see, as Bush is wacko and itchy to murder someone.
>It does appear that the UN is not compromising intelligence, though, this
>time. Of course we can't see in the buildings but we sure can get a fix on
>them without the UN.
>With Bush at the helm we will see more terrorism, no doubt.
there's no way to stop Bush from going ahead anyway, and insofar as the
UN will have provided the excuse (if not the consent), that organisation
will have played a role as an enabler to imperialist aggression.