Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

Steve Swartz


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
in 1991.

I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk