Would you agree if someone said the United States acted multilaterally concerning the War in Iraq?

Question

Many people believe that it is a flase claim that the United States acted Unilaterally in the War in Iraq because of the support of NATO. Do you believe that NATO's support in the war in Iraq counts, making it a multilateral effort?

Answer 1

NATO did NOT support it even though it is essentially rules by the USA.

Is the situation so bad that now right-wingers have to fake a multi-lateral appraoch???? Withdraw the troops before more die, cut the losses

Answer 2

In terms of the word "multilateral" (involving more than one entity in agreement), then technically yes.

Remember, there were many resolutions in the U.N., and the latest round invoked a statute in the Chapter 7 charter that allowed the use of force. Those in the U.N. that voted on that last resolution (Britain, France, U.S., Russia, etc) opened up the pathway for the use of force legally. Iraq was in violation of 17 U.N. resolutions. Two of the security council nations (France and Russia) were found later to have had scandals within their government concerning the Food for Oil program.

You have others in the intelligence community to blame. It's easy to point the finger at the only country that took initiative to back the threat of force.

Answer 3

NATO is a joke and has nothing of any significance to offer. So I would say that the US acted alone regardless of NATO's support, I mean thats like getting in a fight and having your back up be a retarded three legged cat with diarrhea.

Answer 4

i'm no longer happy with Obama and his judgements. i've got faith that if we try this in Libya, we would desire to think of roughly the place else this is going to take place and if we've the components to commit our protection tension to a minimum of a few thing of this nature. we don't and what happens if we are particularly mandatory someplace else. we are spreading our protection tension way too think of. He must be attentive to this. perhaps it particularly is his reason so we are able to be ripe for takeover? would not ask your self me. I agreed with Bush whilst it got here to sending troupes to Iraq and Afghanistan. i assumed it became the properly suited concept yet now i'm at a loss for words. we are nonetheless there and that i do no longer see that issues are from now on useful. i don't be attentive to if we are able to avert destiny terrorist assaults on the u . s . with what we've finished and are doing. My question approximately Libya is "what's in it for us?". I see George Soros gaining billions of greenbacks yet i do no longer see it assisting our united states of america in any respect. I particularly do no longer think of we would desire to continually be supporting the rebels. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are and function been Al Qudea strongholds and we've made some accomplishments yet is this situation in Libya our organization? Has congress approved it, no. Has money been approved of and appropriated for this, no. How long can we be there? No answer there the two. i'm unhappy and if we lose even one American existence, I carry Obama individually responsible. He might to boot have killed them together with his very own palms. Ha! And right here he's saying his campaign for re-election immediately. He makes me choose to throw up. I respond with the information that united statesa. is worse off than it became whilst he took place of work. we are deeper in debt, unemployment is a large number, we are a greater divided united states of america and we've a failed stimulus and not something has helped the financial device. The conflict he pronounced he became going to end and spoke out against isn't over and Mr. Nobel Peace value has easily started yet another conflict. it particularly is a conflict, surely. he's the incorrect guy for us and we choose greater useful and greater honest management. not greater wars.