You are now taking my words out of context. What I meant is that at this point in time, the UN is a very indecisive institution, something that I think is a sad state of affairs. This is what allows madmen to play Run-a-Country.
However, "we" have decided that Saddam is the bad dude here (something I agree with), and he should be beaten to a bloody pulp for ignoring the UN. However, at the same time the "good guys" decide to do the same thing... That just doesn't sit right. Like it or not, but the UN is still the only thing remotely resembling the "peoples of the world", and any country ignoring them is doing things that leave a bad taste in my mouth, be they the US, Iraq, Israel, or the most dangerous place of all, Holland. It makes Bush look like he's taking the same path as Saddam took many years ago.
The US has been the victim of a direct attack. So now it wants to kick ass, which makes a lot of sense. But ignoring international law and order, even if it is slow in acting, is a bad thing.
Here's an example on a more personal level: I have a 5 year old daughter. Would I go after a guy who did something bad to her? Ya damn right! Should I get the police involved? Ya damn right! Would I "sort this guy out" if the police didn't seem to be in a hurry? Ya damn right! Would I be breaking the law by doing so? Ya damn right! Would I feel better having dealt with this guy? Ya damn right! Should the police come after me? Ya damn right! Would people frown on my behavior? Ya damn right!
Do you feel that the judge and the jury should be separate entities? At this point it seems the Bush administration is the prosecution, the judge, the jury, and the executioner.... And that's scary.
Like I said in my earlier post, I have no problem with Saddam being ousted, and if that involves blowing the crap out of a few Republican Guards, I have no trouble with that either. I just don't like the arrogance that the Bush administration is showing in the way they deal with the world. That is all. That is all that should be gotten from my post.
Oh, and for those who are interested in such things, in Gulf War part one the coalition did go after Saddam's ass. Several bunkers where he was suspected to be were targeted and attacked (and destroyed). Problem was that in order to take out these bunkers, they had to rely on the newly developed bunker killing ammunitions (can't remember the exact name at the mo), and these were in such short supply that it was impossible to make sorties against all such targets at the same time. Before more of these arrived on the scene, hostilities had ceased. Also, going to Baghdad and beating Saddam around the lughole was a real option, until Bush senior and his administration decided against it, because they feared a direct attack against Baghdad, which really had nothing to do with liberating Kuwait, would cause a schism in the coalition and would cause the Arab nations involved to step away from it all. Just a little trivia here: The French were actually closest to Baghdad. They had the task of covering the eastern flank of the left hook into Iraq. And they were the only country to have units that said "sod this", and that actually ignored orders and wanted to go Baghdad (The foriegn legion was ordered to cease hostilities within 40Km of "the Big B" when the Iraqi forces put their weapons down. They had every intent of going in, and kicking ass.)
