Blogorrhoea
puts the attack on the UN headquarters in Iraq in some perspective:
Why should Iraqis be expected to love, even trust, the UN? They’ve thought for years that Albright’s infamous response to that little question about 500 000 sanction-killed kiddies (‘we think the price is worth it’) confirmed both the bodycount and their suspicion that the UN, in whose name the sanctions were imposed, was a shop-front for the US – a notion only strengthened by the sadly indignant resignations of erstwhile UN ‘food-for-oil’ directors Halliday in 1998 and von Sponeck in 2000 (even conservative estimates of the deathtoll exceed 100 000). You can’t kill that many people in a country the size of Iraq without everyone knowing someone thus bereaved. We’ve been told for eight months now that Saddam was hated throughout the land for dealing death in just such numbers, so it should come as no surprise that some in Iraq might come gunning for the UN.
And the UN’s role on the ‘aggression-will-not-stand’ issue of ’90/’91 and the WMDs question throughout the following decade would not look well through Iraqi eyes, either. Whatever bits and pieces Iraq actually had at its disposal, all knew Israel had more of each. And nukes, too. And Israel has not been above treading the land of others, either. Not once has the Security Council troubled Israel in the matter, and always because the US exercised its veto in the Security Council