I think so, yes. However, they certainly pay their UN bills, something that the US is the worst in the world at.
The French should not be castigated for their stance against the war. For considering snails to be a delicacy, and for pretending to be the fashion police of the world when they're fashion victims, yes. But against Iraq?
The stance of the French, not to mention Russia, China and, in a world first, Germany against war was not that they wanted the status quo. Everyone hates Saddam, especially the Arabs, and even Osama bin Laden. It was to give the arms inspectors more time. Now, while it's true that the iraqis would move their WMD equipment from one place to another to try to keep them away from the inspectors, this nonetheless severely disrupts any attempt to produce, store or deploy WMDs.
The issue is a matter of how to get rid of him. I guess after the US failed to get rid of Castro with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes, that we decided that the full frontal method would be the best way.
This is for 2 reasons. Through the 80's, the US used Saddam's regime as their main stabilising influence in the Middle East. Sounds odd, but he was fighting a war against Iran at the time, and the enemy or my enemy is my friend, and all that. That he'd willingly use the WMDs the US (and other weapons other countries in the West sold him) in a combat environment and report their effectiveness was just an added bonus. But after he went rogue and started invading other countries, the US lost their principal Arab ally, and we've been itching to find a way of reversing the situation for a decade.
The US has consistently failed to reveal a future vision for Iraq once Saddam is gone. This is probably because of the intent to ensure that a subservient, pro-US government is installed. Of course, it's not good for PR that we say this. Support for the war is weak enough without having to deal with accusations of empire building.
The second reason is simply oil supply. Dubya comes from Texas, most of the Bush family fortune is based in oil, the opportunity to allow his cronies free access to the world's second largest oil reserves is too good to be missed.
Other reasons are simply rubbish. Governments barely care about their own people, why would they bother freeing the Iraqi people? I never knew Buch and Blair were into karma. As for disarming Saddam of WMDs, isn't that what laser guided bombs and cruise missiles are for? They proved their effectiveness in Afghanistan, all it would take is a few satellites for guidance and a couple of carrier groups. There's simply no need to put 100,000 soldiers in harm's way and blow $90 billion for the sake of getting rid of some mustard gas and VX nerve agent. Honestly, it was Donny Rumsfeld who was one of the main players in selling WMDs to Iraq in the first place. If he's so desperate to get them back, then why doesn't he and Dubya borrow the keys to an Abrams tank and do it themselves? There's no excuse for wasting good soldiers' lives and putting countless others at risk in order to rectify the mistake of supporting complete lunatics.
I'm all for supporting troops, after all, they're the ones who'll get a US spec WMD in the a$$. And I'm not bothered about people who support the war as a means of ensuring US-backed stability in the Middle East and regular oil flow. But the war isn't going to make the world a better or safer place, nor is it going to stop the proliferation of WMDs. And for that, I think we'll lose out in the long run.
Hope I'm wrong, though.
Topic: No letters from Philadelphia. (Read 5646 times)