The Winds Of War

After listening to the President’s last speech, I am now utterly sure that we will be going to war with Iraq within the next few weeks.

Granted, it had been a virtual certainty before, but now it’s 100%. Saddam will not disarm at this point, especially since he thinks he has the UN essentially acting on his behalf.

However, I believe Bush when he says that he still believes that war can be avoided, I just think that he’s being overly optimistic. France has chosen sides, as has China and possibly Russia. France alone could derail our plans, and Dominique de Villepin (the modern-day Neville Chamberlain) will allow his Gaullic ego to overthrow any and all common sense.

The course this nation is embarked upon is now virtually irreversable. The UN will side with the evils of the Hussein regime and hang themselves with their own bureaucratic red tape. France will leave itself an impotent diplomatic husk trying to convince itself that it still is even a shadow of its former glory. Saddam Hussein will be disarmed, thanks to our military and our British, Australian, and Eastern European allies.

It’s almost like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know exactly what is going to happen, but there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent it.

In a way it is a tragedy – not only because US soldiers are going to die doing something that should have been ten years ago, but because a lot of potential will be wasted as well. France had an opportunity to truly lead Europe – instead they’ve decided to act like a group of selfish and unruly brats. It’s their perogative, but I think they’re blind to the repercussions it will bring to them.

There’s a bit of idealism in me that says that the nations of the world might actually have been able to come together in recognizing and removing the threat that Iraq poses to the world – then again, all that has transpired in the last few days has been a reminder why I’m a realist after all.

2 thoughts on “The Winds Of War

  1. You wrote, “France will leave itself an impotent diplomatic husk trying to convince itself that it still is even a shadow of its former glory.” And then a few sentences later, ” France had an opportunity to truly lead Europe – instead they’ve decided to act like a group of selfish and unruly brats. ”

    So which is it? Is turning one’s nation into a “impotent diplomatic husk” an act of self-interest? Is that what being selfish consists of? Or is it actually AGAINST a nation’s (or individual’s) self-interest to behave impotently?

    France is horrible and impotent, I agree. But such characteristics are not truly selfish–they’re self-destructive.

  2. You’re right – nations are more or less self-interested. What’s especially obnoxious about the French is that they are acting in a self-destructive manner, but out of a sense of national egoism. Even the most self-interested of nations has to realize its limits from time to time . France is trying to act in a selfish manner, but as you quite correctly point out, it’s ultimately self destructive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.