I agree with what you say Bruce, but I am a little confused.  Back in the
fall of 1998, when Saddam threatened to get rid of the inspectors, Bill
Clinton, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhardt , Jean Chretien and everybody
else were all for threatening attacking Iraq and effecting regime change.
When Saddam Hussein went ahead and threw out the inspectors in the face of
worldwide condemnation and threats, the "only" thing the world did is watch
America throw in 450 cruise missiles into Iraq and then promptly forget the
whole thing.  Nobody except for Iraq complained about this mindless attack.

Fast forward 4.5 years and now after Iraq ignores YAUNR (yet another UN
resolution,) America, the UK and a bunch of other nations are on the verge
of going into Iraq, removing Saddam Hussein and enforcing the past 17 UN
resolutions and the cease-fire agreements against Iraq.  I would suggest to
you this attack will probably do less "collateral damage" and far more good
than the last attack of 450 cruise missiles in 1998, unless these missiles
were wasted on sand dunes and empty tents.  (And at $1 million per copy,
that's a lot of money to throw away.)

Everybody speaks of the US acting unilaterally, however that is incorrect.
At this juncture, it seems that only France, Germany and Belgium are
steadfastly opposed to any military action.  Currently it is believed that
Germany is probably trying to hide its possible illegal activities with Iraq
over the last 10 years.  France may be doing the same thing, but it has now
surfaced that Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein go way back as friends, back
into the mid-70s.  It is also possible that France and Germany are simply
being anti-war simply to be anti-American so as to dominate the rest of the
EU countries and trying to keep all the other European countries in line
with them and not with the US.  Certainly, Jacques Chirac's recent
statements, criticisms and thinly veiled threats aimed at the 18 European
countries that back US/UK military action, speak volumes.

Unilateral indeed, but who is acting unilaterally?

Finally, you are very wise to disagree with Richard's suggestion about what
he describes as a body to replace the UN.  Why should we pressure countries
to adopt democracy?  That actually is an antithesis.  Pressuring to go to
democracy is undemocratic in itself.  :)  I do think that various countries,
after being liberated from oppressive regimes and brutal dictators, may
decide to try democracy, but it is up to them to decide.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Bruce Collins
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Re: [HP3000-L] Left, Left, Left-Right-Left

Richard Barker wrote:
> I don't think anyone, outside of the US, wants America to be the world's
>police force.  I certainly don't want the US dictating to any country it
>feels like, it's particular version of justice.  It seems to me that a few
>listees, want America to be given the right to do whatever it chooses
>without being questioned or asked to explain itself.  Basically a world
>Dictator.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. American's seem to think that
other countries should be grateful for their policing efforts, and don't
realize that other countries might view this as interference when it is done
unilaterally.

> I personally would like to see a body replace the UN, which is formed by
all
> countries that operate a democracy.  The role of this council should be to
> pressure all countries of the world to adopt a democracy.  This, of
course,
> would truly allow the people to select the appropriate leader.

In this case, I disagree. I would also consider pressuring countries to
adopt democracy as interference.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *