This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.
ABCNEWS.com : World Leaders Urge U.S. Restraint
I agree with den Beste (as usual). I'd like to attack Iraq just to get the rest of the world to shut up. I am not particularly interested anymore in hearing what any other country has to say. And I am especially sick of hearing about this fictional "international law" at treaties from 1648. America does not need anyone's permission. If they don't like it, tough.
There are only a handful of countries that interest me a little - the UK, Israel, China, and Russia.
Israel and the UK matter because they are our faithful allies. Out of respect for our long relationship with them, we should at least pretend to be interested in what they have to say. China and Russia could be formidable opponents and have not historically been our friends. I don't want to unnecessarily upset them.
From the article I linked to:
On Tuesday, Annan said he favored ongoing dialogue with Saddam's government and that if Washington decides to attack Iraq it would not reflect U.N. policy.
What makes Annan think that talking will work now? It hasn't worked since the Gulf War. Saddam is thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions. He keeps putting up conditions for talks that even Annan rejects.
[German Foreign Minister] Fischer told German radio that "with no change in the analysis of the threat posed by Iraq, we believe a regime change brought about by military intervention to be highly risky and its consequences unclear, which is why we reject it."
Translation: we are chicken. Too risky.
Xinhua also quoted Qian as saying that "China does not agree with the practice of using force or threatening to use force to resolve this issue."
The practice of using force or threatening to use force is quite justified, however, when dealing with Taiwan.
Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the region, on Wednesday repeated its opposition to a military attack on Iraq, saying Washington should insist on a return of weapons inspectors.
First of all, we've been "insist[ing] on a return of weapons inspectors" for years now, and it's done no good. Second, I think Saudi Arabia has a vested interest in remaining a "key ally" of ours. If we were to have a US-friendly regime in Iraq, it would greatly weaken the significance of Saudi Arabia. Who knows, we might even start to notice the nationality of all but a few 9/11 hijackers. Or perhaps take notice of the Saudi funding of Palestinian terrorists.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said: "Attacking the Iraqi people will force them into backing their government."
Yeah, right. Saddam doesn't even trust his own military. Last time we attacked, they were surrendering to CNN cameramen.
indicated Washington was just getting started on building a coalition against Baghdad.
The only "coalition" we need is Congress and the President. We don't even need Colin Powell's approval.
Posted by Robert at August 28, 2002 03:16 PM | TrackBack