Posted by Roland (184.108.40.206) on April 17, 2004 at 22:48:50:
I cannot accept your position that the UN should not become involved in Iraq because of corruption in certain quarters. This is no more reasonable than expecting your entire government to have ceased operation during the Watergate fiasco. Not even your present government requires that. In fact, today they appear to be adopting a more conciliatory approach about the UN’s involvement after previously declaring the institution as irrelevant - probably because they (the US) have found occupation a little more troubling than expected.
I understand that you have difficulty accepting that the current US administration is determined to assert its influence in the globe through military and economic coercion. It is an outlandish concept – I agree. Nevertheless, that is how I and a number of other observers, even those within your own borders, see the Bush Administration’s position. As I see it, there are two levels at which one must review US international intentions. Firstly, one cannot expect the phraseology of Government rhetoric to be blatant – rather to be couched in euphemisms and diplomacy. The statements need to be considered for what they imply not what they say. Secondly, does the behaviour of the US government support their policy? I think I have addressed the behaviour in previous posts.
Post a Followup