It’s ok to oppose war as long as you don’t oppose war
The LA TImes today, in an “analysis” of French opposition to an Iraq War opined it would be deeply tragic if France voted NO for war. Why? Because then the US would forced, forced I tell you, to act outside the UN, and this would hurt the international status of France. Huh?
Let’s see if I have this right. If a rogue nation (that would be us) ignores a UN vote and goes to war anyway, this would reflect badly on those nations opposed to war. According to the convoluted Orwellian “logic” here, it’s ok for a country to oppose an Iraq War as long as they don’t actually vote against the war. Because a NO vote will hurt their status since the aforementioned rogue nation will ignore the vote thus damaging the credibility of the UN.
It would appear to me that the rogue nation is the problem here, and not those opposing the rogue nation. As I’ve said before, with headlines like this, it getting harder to do satire.
“In the 1998-99 Kosovo crisis in Yugoslavia, the U.S. faced a certain Russian veto of military intervention. Washington assembled a coalition that included the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and left the United Nations behind. That move seriously weakened the U.N.’s role as an international player. If the U.S. skirted the U.N. again, it would cast the Security Council into irrelevance and, along with it, France’s great standing that derives from its veto-holding status.
“Would France kill the goose that laid the golden egg of international prestige?” said Malone. “I doubt it. They are skeptical, they want to defend their principles, but the last thing they want the Americans to do is act outside the council.”
This just in. I guess satire IS still possible.
President reassures U.S.: “Our righteous slaughter of Iraqi babies shall not be thwarted by fraidy cat euro-faggots!”