I feel the evidence to go to the war was shaky at best, and later shown to be fraudulent, but that has little to do with my question:
In a situation where the dictator of a country is required, after attempting to invade a neighbooring country, to have his arsenal inspected and after a while he refuses and kicks out the inspectors...what is the proper course of action?
2006-09-14 11:15:18 · 11 answers · asked by DougDoug_ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let the UN handle it. That's what we pay them for. Which brings up another question. Why do we pay so much when we only get one vote like everyone else?
2006-09-14 11:18:58 · answer #1 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who induced the inspections? The UN, right? Then why doesn't the UN do what it was conceived to do? I would say that complete and total isolation would be in order until the people of that country did something to improve the situation. Why is it always the US responsibility to police the whole world? Most countries just want our money, and after that it's back to the "Ugly Americans".
2006-09-14 18:22:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't a US problem, it's a problem that effects many nations. Since many nations are impacted by the results of this conflict the UN would be the best organization to handle a situation like this. Sanctions lack the cowboy hooplah, but choking them off economically is a much more civilized solution than killing thousands of people and putting our country into financial and diplomatic ruin.
2006-09-14 18:36:15 · answer #3 · answered by 0 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's a good question... I think it is a decision that should be made by the international community... maybe sanctions... which we did in Iraq... maybe bombings, which we did in Iraq... maybe just sit on the situation because there are more important threats out there... it just depends on the situation...
I mean similar actions have been taken several different times in africa... and the international community doesn't seem to care when it happens there though...
2006-09-14 18:21:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the US gave him the arsenal in the first place and then destroyed it in the Gulf War, the US should be held accountable if weapons were found. Which they weren't. Sadaam let inspectors in whenever they requested. He only objected when he realized that instead of inspecting, they were looking for reasons to invade.
2006-09-14 18:18:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Upholding the nuclear searches imposed by the UN were a necessity, and yet we never enforced them, and got lead into a war via fear-mongering.
We should have left Saddam alone, the US has too many problem of its own to play policeman. If the Iraqis wanted freedom they would have started a revolution, which they never did and have yet to do.
2006-09-14 18:17:43 · answer #6 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Read resolution 1441. It should be outlawed to make worthless threats in resolutions only to cower to the rogue states which empowers the enemy.
2006-09-14 18:21:39 · answer #7 · answered by John Skerry II 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sattelite photos can see the country. Unless he's got something dirty, we don't care about it.
Besides, he's over there. If he shows the possibility of attacking us, we just strike that one transport.
2006-09-14 18:23:24 · answer #8 · answered by Roger Y 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what did we do with the Russians..........hmmmmm how quickly we like to forget.
2006-09-14 18:18:25 · answer #9 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yup, would you allow your enemy the advantage of nuclear or biological weapons? nope....
2006-09-14 18:19:15 · answer #10 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋