I'm still watching the continued "live" coverage of the UN. Security Council and , so far , both China & Russia are willing to accept the current process of U.N. Inspections and are apparently letting Iraq off with 1st warning ( suggesting there would be 2nd & 3rd and perhaps indefinite subsequent warnings )& a probation of a manner.
With all of the alterior motives ascribed to the U.S. 's agenda amounting to another "Waco"-style storming of Saddam's compound I have to ask why no one is willing to offer as much
scrutiny to Russia's & China's alterior motives buttressing their U.N. Security Council recommendations.
We all "should" know that Beijing has let it be known, in "no" uncertain terms that it "will" take back Taiwan by military means if necessary and it will t5olerate "no" interference from foreign; powers especially the U.S. Beijing is known for far wider reaching Totalitarina-style human rights abuses than Sadam's
regime. It also knows that it is a "key" player in the North Korean "issue" of "proven" nuclear weapons production and "proliferation". It knows it "must" remain the key player in resolving the still "hot" real & present danger of N.Korea's
nuclear weaponry production agenda.
Witness that N.Korea is far further along in its declared agenda than Iraq was when Isreal chose to act upon its decision for a "unilateral pre-emptive" strike against the Osirac nuclear "energy" production plant in 1981( peaceful nuclear energy production in a nation with the 2nd largest private reserve of oil ).
I must ask if those in this thread genuinely consider 'that" pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear ambitions with the same vehemence that they now oppose anything beyond the
present U.N. inspections "enemic" and woefully under-resourced system while having to try an out-think Saddam's hide & seek "cheating" on his own playing field.
I ,personally , am for leaving the assembled troops in place to continue an even more vigorous "containment policy" while back-up making this a true and thorough "search & seizure" operation with the U.N.'s search warrant in hand....which is supposed to be what the U.N. inspection is 'supposed" to be all about.
Ofcourse I've always been of the opinion that this should have been done back in 1991 after a Scharztkopf victory and cleaned out Saddam then. That oppurtunity has been lost forever and now we are here again, like it or not
The French U.N. delegate just announced they recommend a far more rigorous inspection effort tripling the amount of resources
with regular follow-up. This means even France determines Iraq "is" now considered a credable threat to global security and "has" been actively and conciously "thwarting" the collective U.N. efforts to enforce compliance.
Let us all please remember that this "is" always been about the U.N. doing "its" job and fulfilling its mandate or it is a meaningless alternative to the kind of "unilateralism" that lies ahead ,say, if and when Beijing decides it can no longer wait for Taiwan to come back into the embrace the motherland mandate.
Now Russia is known to have oil deals with the current Iraqi regime so it , along with France , has its proftable alternative motive to it's pre-scripted agenda.
BTW: Anybody aware that these speeches were written for these U.N. reps "before" the Powell presentation. They are for ratcheting up far more rigorous "search & seizure" inspection "enforcement", but that's after the rather damning report that Hans Blix delivered over a week ago. ( Anybody read it ?)
Right now I feel that these U.N. imspectors are even braver than the fallen Shuttle astronauts because they are the world's "canaries in the mine" , constantly under "armmed" monitoring,
and with a cornered Saddam regime who has already shown how far he is willing to go to play the "illegal" weapons shell game. I can say illegal because it "is" the U.N.'s mandate that
even the "obstuction" of the inspections ,let alone possession of production tools & materials, let alone finished weaponry ,is clear violation.
Either you belive in the U.N. as the viable alternative to unilateral war or not. Whether the U.N. is up to carrying out its mandate remains to be seen.