more u.n. yammering
By Todd Stadler · Saturday, March 8, 2003 2:18pm
Okay, I promise I won't write much more about the UN after this article.
After all, the UN will be irrelevant in ten to twenty days when we go to war (ten days gives us the day after the March 17 deadline, and in twenty-four days it will have been months, not weeks, since Bush said "this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.").
And by irrelevant, I mean truly irrelevant, as when one U.S. official said (NYTimes/registration), "There's no shame in winning the [Security Council] vote and going ahead after a veto ... We could easily argue the French are frustrating the will of the Council."
You can't get much more explicit about how little the Security Council matters without actually going to war.
Not that anybody wants war. Nope. Everybody hates war. We don't even know how it starts. Just happens, I guess. But, mind you, nobody wants it. Terrible thing, war. Hate it. Yup.
What's funny is that people still pretend that the Security Council means anything after the United States and friends already flouted it in their actions in Kosovo and, hey, Iraq.
Kofi Annan has no clothes.
3 comments so far
1 Mar 10 '03 2:08pm:
Josh replied:
"Don't forget Rwanda!
http://www.africaaction.org/docs99/rwan9912.htm"
2 Mar 11 '03 12:06am:
tODD replied:
"Rwanda isn't specifically an example of the US flouting UN authority, though, right?
It's more an example of a pitiful lack of UN action that could have been helpful, in theory.
But then, Rwanda isn't resource-rich or associated with a major world religion or anything like that, so it's okay if a few hundred thousand folks kill each other.
It's not like they were taking babies from incubators or anything."
3 Mar 11 '03 3:56pm:
Josh replied:
"I meant it more as an example of the general uselessness of the security council.
:)
Sigh."