| ||||||
|
||||||
Sunday, October 20, 2002
The Dogs of War
|
 | ||
| RELATED EDITORIALS
Dirty Little Dots
Engulfed by Tragedy
Palestine Paradise
WARtertainment Reality Television RELATED COVERS
End Game
New World Attention Deficit Disorder
Unbearable Likeness
Big Sister
Look Daddy RELATED POSTCARDS
The Dogs of War | | NOISE
I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution...And, so, it is my intention to vote yes on the resolution before us. I do so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and with the trust that the Administration forge a coalition rather than go it alone. And I do so with the fervent prayer that it will not be necessary to place America's fighting forces or innocent civilians anywhere in harm's way.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot rule out military action against Iraq in the US-led war on terrorism. He was speaking after the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, said he believed the US planned to attack 300 Iraqi targets with 1,000 missiles. However, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissed the idea, telling America's ABC News he had seen no evidence to link Iraq with the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
As time passes and wounds heal, we should not forget the horror of what befell us that day, and go back to old ways of doing things. We owe it to those who died September 11th and those who will come after us to ensure that our nation learns—and heeds—the lessons of that fateful day...In this time of crisis, let us work together to make the investments necessary to win this war—and to prevent the next one. Let us do so chastened by our experiences on September 11th, and with a renewed commitment to ensure that, once the fires burned out, the war ends, and the nation rebuilds, we won’t forget the lessons learned at the cost of so many innocent lives; that we won’t go back to old ways of doing things. The lives of our children and grandchildren depend on it.
Let me be plain about our purpose. Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the region and the whole world would be better off without Saddam. They deserve to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator. Someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah. Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed. Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East. So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no-one other than Saddam.But our purpose is disarmament. No-one wants military conflict. The whole purpose of putting this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of the international community to resolve this in the way it should have been resolved years ago: through a proper process of disarmament under the UN. Disarmament of all WMD is the demand. One way or another it must be acceded to...Finally, there are many acts of this drama still to be played out. I have always said that Parliament should be kept in touch with all developments, in particular those that would lead us to military action. That remains the case. |
|
© Copyright 1997-2024 ApolloMedia Corporation. All Rights Reserved. annoy.com Site Information |
