"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> This editorial from The Economist is perhaps the most brilliant and cogent
> position statement on Iraq that I have read yet. In sum, it makes the
> case as to why it is necessary to attack Iraq, why UN support would be a
> good idea, and ultimatel why the US must attack Iraq without UN support,
> should it be refused.
...
> Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. It backed the butcher of
> the Balkans to the bitter end. Some still claim that NATO's intervention
> there was illegal, since it lacked explicit UN endorsement. Yet 19 of the
> world's strongest democracies were surely right to act where the UN,
> divided, could not.
>
> The case of Iraq is different, admittedly. Saddam Hussein has killed far
> more of his own people and his neighbours than Mr Milosevic ever did; and
> he has sent his armies and his rockets well beyond Iraq's borders.
...
So let me get this straight. NATO intervened in the Balkans.
Hussein is worse than Milosevic. And yet the US can't find even a
couple of European allies to help fight Iraq?
If it is such a great idea, you think Bush could sell it to
a few other countries!
I agree, waiting for the UN to do anything is hopeless.
But some international support is needed.
---David Hobby
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
