That, with our air power, would have been enough to stop further aggression by Iraq.
So you would have, once again, permitted Iraq to utterly ignore the demands of the UN for Iraq to immediately withdraw from Kuwait?
The problem I have with your perspective here is that every time a two-bit dictator takes an inch, you give him a mile... You are far too tolerant of governmental misbehavior and it leads such leaders as Saddam to politically "spit" in your face, knowing you don't have the balls to enforce your own rhetoric.
The French were originally opposed to Desert Storm, but then quickly recognized that they could not actually protect their little dictator, so they'd better take a minor role in the play.. This way they kept themselves "in the game" and prevented it from turning into a regime change operation.
Even now, the French and Germans are opposing Powell's plan to report to the UN, claiming that the plan doesn't "go far enough or fast enough".
Lost in all of this though, is any alternative plan by them, or exactly who the US should turn power over to. And Powell RIGHTLY pointed that out to them and the UN. Thus, to any objective analyst, it's evident that they have no counter-proposal or plan to offer.. They just don't like the US plan..
And isn't that so indicative of the type of complaints we have out here? People complaining about the way things are going, but who offer no viable alternative.
The Korean War, like Iraq1, was another clear case of aggression, for which Strict Reciprocity means evicting the aggressor.
That doesn't sound like reciprocity to me. Reciprocity is when you do unto others as they have tried to do to you. N. Korea tried to conquer the south and oust its government. Reciprocity should demand doing the same to the aggressor, as occurred in WWI and WWII.
They can reduce that power, by refusing to cooperate, and that is the consistent policy of France.
Just as they refuse to offer viable alternatives, nor lack the ability to carry them out without US assistance.
As far as I'm concerned, when they front the majority of the costs and the manpower for UN related activities, then they can have the justifiable right to promote their own solutions. But to oppose US policies solely because they have a permanent veto on the UNSC will only make the UN that much less viable an organization.
After all, that's hardly multi-lateralism on their part.. They're just "c**k-blocking" the US and putting our troops at risk.
Hawk |
