SOUNDING BOARD is an outlet for opinions on good and crazy things going on at home (wherever I may be). All are welcome. You are not expected to bring anything except your common sense & sense of humor.
'If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.'
-Robert X. Cringely (from geek wisdom)
President George W. Bush warned that a new UN resolution was not a prerequisite for military action against Iraq and reiterated that only 'full disarmament' by Baghdad can avert war. Asked what could prevent US-led military action to strip Baghdad of any weapons of mass destruction, Bush replied: "There's only one thing, that's full disarmament.'
Of course, US can attack Iraq even without any resolution. In fact, US can attack any country it wants. But is there a likelihood that US will go it alone? The answer is a clear NO. It may appear (or made to appear) that Bush has a penchant for unilateral action. However, regardless of the tough, cowboy image that Bush has been trying hard to project with respect to the issue on Iraq, one has to separate the shit from the bull. It is true that from day one, Bush has been threatening to go it alone and 'bring Saddam Hussein to his knees' (now that's a sample of a projected tough image). It is also true that Bush has been going through the United Nations and even seeking support from small nations. The fact is, US can't go it alone. Not if it still thinks itself as part of the globalized world. It can't afford to alienate itself from its allies, even with the support of UK, especially in the light of recent developments pertaining to 'new positive steps being taken by Iraq'.
posted by Allan at 10:56 AM (GMT+8)
permalink (URL of this post) ::
