|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-11 08:55:15
Actually, the problem with the US working under UN auspices is that it must relinquish control to a bunch of beaureaucrats who are paid too much to blah, blah, blah without any connection to reality.
Any failure committed by the UN would be blamed on the US and would be paid for in US blood.
For example, UN sanctions on Iraq were blamed on the US.
The failure to rebuild Afghanistan instantly (like Folgers coffee crystals) is blamed on the US - even though the UN is the nation builder there.
It is absolutely false to say "that the world population and world governments don't understand the US, well if someone goes down to this kind of reasoning, it means that they only
take the point of view of one country, and ignores the rest of the world."
There are many countries, particularly those who have been recently freed of dictatorial yokes, that agree with US. Those who adore the security council think these countries either don't count or are, to use Chirac's language, "spoiled brat children states".
Other countries have waffled on Iraq for internal reasons. Specifically, Canada and Chile. Chile has a history with dictatorship and international justice that is quite unique and they should not be lumped in with France and Syria.
I think people who create the dichotomy of One country (US) and "The rest of the world" are people who should not be diplomats because they simply want to suppress the opinions of non-US countries that disagree with France.
Reply to this message
|
