Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macphoria

macrumors 6502a
Nov 29, 2002
594
0
ddtlm,

Ignoring U.N. resolution for 12 years? Then why wasn't this brought up sooner? Disarming a nation's military is not a easy process, especially considering Iraq is sitting next to powerful country like Iran, with which it has gone to war before. Disarming is one thing, but to maintain certain degree of deterence against hostile neighbor is a sovereign right to any nation. This cannot be done easily.

You speak of U.N. not taking action and this is debatable. Many members of U.N. took action in former Yugoslavia, including France, trying to bring the conflict under control. Many of the war criminals have been brough to justice and are to be tried under International Court, which U.S. as I have mentioned is reluctant to join. However, hunderds of thousands of African people were massacred in civil wars in past decade which could have been prevented if members of U.N. were more proactive, and this could be the counter argument.

But, the issue with Iraq was formally brought to U.N. Security Council and U.S. even participated in coming up with acceptable way of handling the situation, up until the point where Bush administration decided to act on its own. This is what I do not agree with. U.S. is the superpower and leader of the world. We have so much to give to the world but our ideals for better society will not stand if we impose this rather than share. To do this we have to listen to what rest of the world is saying. Leaving the discussion table now is making a statement along the lines of "since you won't let me have it my way, I'm going on my own."

You might perceive U.N. is hesitant to take action, and you are right. Because "action" is euphemism for war. People will die when "action" is taken. When there is potential for large number of people being killed, it makes more sense to avoid it. U.N. was put together to maintain peace among nations, not to decide who gets to kill and who gets to die.

During the first conflict with Iraq, many nations in Middle East supported U.S. taking the lead in fighting off Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Now, the support is not so enthusiastic. Saudi Arabia, for example, previously stated they'll support U.S. military action only if it were sanctioned by U.N.. We need to think about why this is the case.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
macphoria:

Ignoring U.N. resolution for 12 years? Then why wasn't this brought up sooner?
Clinton didn't want war. Bush was delayed by 9/11 and Afghanistan.

You might perceive U.N. is hesitant to take action, and you are right. Because "action" is euphemism for war. People will die when "action" is taken.
For a long time I heard about how many innocent people in Iraq were dieing due to the sanctions... so in this case inaction is also killing people. It seems to me that now would be a good time to drag out the number that human rights people claimed died under the sanctions.

During the first conflict with Iraq, many nations in Middle East supported U.S. taking the lead in fighting off Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Now, the support is not so enthusiastic. Saudi Arabia, for example, previously stated they'll support U.S. military action only if it were sanctioned by U.N.. We need to think about why this is the case.
Yeah I'm less than happy how poorly Bush+co did with diplomacy. I agree with the general direction he is headed but I think that Bush is doing a rather hamfisted job. :( For example, giving Iraq a little more time sounded OK to me if we could win anyone's support by doing it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.