then should they not do the same for Sudan, if what you say that there is slavery over there? I call this double standard. It has nothing to do what my view is on the Iraqi attack.
Double standard? Only if the US was actually supporting those regimes and not criticizing them for their repression and lack of human rights..
The only difference is that the US had not identified vital economic and political interests that needed to be protected by military force vis-a-vis Sudan. But the global economy runs on oil, and that's a vital interest, like it or not.
The Bush administration has a vision, foolish or brilliant we've have to see, aimed at changing the politico-economic environment in the Middle East. Sometimes economic and political pressure will suffice, but when it doesn't, the choice will have to be made whether those interests warrant the use of military force.
But that's not a double standard. It's called prioritization, and focus, of effort.
US sought the support of the Security Council before the attack. It failed to get the required number of 9 votes
Red herring Chinu.. For one, AS I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN, the UN has NO RECORD of having actually authorizing the use of force to overthrow a regime. None.. Nada.. Never..
Look at Desert Storm. The UN didn't directly authorize the use of force there either. All they did was lift any restrictions on the actions that nations could take to enforce those resolutions via UNSC 678 (authorizing all necessary means to restore peace and regional stability).
So it's not surprising that the US couldn't obtain 9 votes, especially with the opposition of France and Russia.
But 1441, which declared Iraq in material breach, WAS PASSED 15-0, clearly indicating the moral strength of the argument the Bush administration made about the failure of Saddam to comply with binding UN resolutions. UNSC 1441 was the functional equivalent of UNSC 678, because if "recalled" (reasserted) that resolution.
And that means that UNSC 1441 had all the force and authority of the resolution that backed up military action during Desert Storn, UNSC 678. If anything, 1441 was a MORE POWERFUL resolution because, unlike previous UN resolutions, it declared Iraq to be in material breach, functionally the equivalent of nullifying the cease fire and reinitiating the hostilities of 1991.
If UNSC 678 had not been referred to in 1441, then you'd have a legitimate argument.
Hawk |
