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.
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.