¶ … articles about the U.S. war on Iraq, both taken non-U.S. newspapers. The articles, one Canadian, and one from Australia, are clearly critical of the U.S.'s attempts to instigate military action on Iraq. This may reflect a growing worldwide opinion the U.S. has no right to bring the world to war by insisting on military action against Iraq.
In an article entitled "Trigger-happy U.S. checked by UN safety catch," Journalist Marian Wilkinson delves into the U.S. war on Iraq. Published in the Sydney Morning Herald, this Australian article starts with the note that the United States and Britain "quietly ditched" a hard-line draft of a resolution on Iraq before that resolution made it to the United Nation's (UN) Security Council negotiating table. The article notes that the initial hard-line resolution would have "committed the United Nations Security Council to a military strike on Iraq within weeks."
Wilkinson notes...
And Britain to ditch the resolution. She then describes the U.S.'s changes in rhetoric following the decision to ditch the resolution. Specifically, she notes that a White House spokesman began to talk about negotiations and diplomatic conversations dealing with the Iraqi threat.
Wilkinson notes that the majority of the world, excepting Britain, Australia, Israel and some small states, does not support the U.S.'s proposed war on Iraq. The article then discusses the efforts of weapons inspectors in Iraq, and concludes that the U.S. intends to press for war against Iraq, with or without the support of the Security Council.
This article clearly holds a negative position on proposed war against Iraq. The words used to describe the United States and the proposed actions against…
