>> Because he [Holbrooke] thinks he could have sold it!
>>
>> Thiago
>
> Right. But wouldn't you have preferred a multilateral war against Iraq to a
> unilateral war against Iraq (and I'm not conceding that Gore would've pushed
> for either)? It would've done a lot less damage to the credibility of the
> UN and it probably would've improved the prospects for Iraq during and after
> foreign occupation.
>
> -- Luke
Well, that's one way of looking at it. The US decides to go rampant, and it's the UN that has lost credibility. If the UN had knuckled under, that would have been to its credit. It looses credibility if it does not do what the US wants done. I am afraid I cannot agree with this way of seeing things.
I think that a multilateral war won by means of coercion, bribes and well pitched b.s. would have been even more damaging. In my opinion, the UN did remarkably well, all things considered. It forced the US, which had no case, to do its own dirty work. That it went ahead and did that anyway is a serious problem, and sound grounds for the non-US world to attempt to deter the US. And if diplomacy won't deter it, then...
Sorry, I am not in a good mood. I've just been watching some awful news on TV. The government has proposed suspending habeas corpus for people suspected of knowing something about terrorism. ASIO, our secret service, would be able to do this to kids who are 14. They would be detained without access to lawyers or the right to silence. Labor wants that age raised to 16. That's opposition, in the age of simulation...
-- The impossible attracts me because everything possible has been tried and the world didn't change - Sun Ra