I may be wrong but didn't the USA go AGAINST the UN and attack Iraq anyways?

Question

If so, then how can the USA say anything when N. Korea is going AGAINST the UN and the nuke issues?

Answer 1

Wow, and I thought no one does any thinking on this site...and just ask stupid and poorly written questions. Yes, US in principal went against the recommendation of the UN. But, remember the US is the most influential member of the UN. It also has the backing of other countries such as the UK. Anyhow, we have been severely criticized by going against the UN, and going to war in Iraq anyway. Yes, you are right, it does seem contradictory that we are criticizing N.Korea nuclear buildup, etc. In this regard it has the backing of most of the member of the UN except China and Russia have not spoken out against N Korea (it is not in their best interest and they LOVE having something to challenge the US with). Anyhow, all countries defend their own interests first and then adhere to the UN second. When a country is as large at the US, it is just more noticeable. Either way, what N. Korea is doing is frightening to more countries than just the US. So, just because the US ignores some of the UN mandates, that does not mean it is wrong ever time it admonishes countries that are violating all sorts of UN and Geneva based conventions. Unfortunately, nothing in foreign affairs is fair and will never be. I just hope that in the end mankind can live on earth in relative peace...but even that I am afraid my not be possible.

Answer 2

The technical answer is yes. However we declared war on Iraq in 91. The end of hostilities was a ceasefire based on agreements by the Iraqi government that they would follow UN resolutions. The Iraqis then proceeded to defy 17 different resolutions. This put them in defiance of the terms of the ceasefire. A ceasefire is not the same as a peace treaty and hostilities can be re-engaged at any time when terms are not met without a new declaration of war. In short we did not need UN approval, but it would have been better if they had been willing to enforce their own mandates. However, the corruption in the UN is a different debate.

immunesg: Need to pay a little more attention to the news. China has been speaking out strongly for days now about the nuclear test Korea had scheduled and carried out. Now whether China will support sanctions in the UN is questionable, but there is little doubt that they are against a nuclear armed North Korea.

Trout: Your contention about an Arms Race is incorrect. The North Korean nuclear debate was raging long before Mr Bush took office. In fact the very reason North Korea has the means to build nuclear weapons now is because the Clinton administration provided the equipment in the first place. This is not an indictment of Mr. Clinton merely a clarification. Iran was also actively developing weapons prior to Mr. Bush's inauguration. Pakistan and India already had nuclear weapons etc. If you are going to post on world affairs you should consider the entire history of what has come before rather than just the current administration.

Answer 3

Bush was in such an uproar about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist he didn't care ....... so yes he went against the UN

The only reason the US is playing ball with the UN now is because they need to talk other nations into relieving thier strained military .

China is too big to take on so they ask or issue resolutions Russia still the same story .

Iraq and Iran don't stand a chance against the US - so the UN isn't so necesary there .

North Korea if it does have a nuclear weapon might be starvable (most of there food etc comes from imports) so the UN might be useful again there. If not then they will likely do somthing before Korea goes on the have to negotiate not dictate to list.

When the second war was finished the UK could no longer force policy's and so forth they had to persuade the US has no intention of allowing that to happen to them - Hence te stance they have taken.

The US corperate world see's itself as the natural owner of foriegn wealth and the military of the US as their security that no one gets in the way. As you view the US military's record through this perspective it suddenly makes sense.

So now the world of the small countries see nukes as a way to discourage the US from taking over performing regime changes and conducting red flag operations in their country.

Bush through a series of military take overs and the necesary lies to justify them has restarted the arms race -

Answer 4

Well it didn't wait for the UN to pass a resolution for or against it.

That's a very big finger up at the UN.

Well, the USA v N Korea thing is more about Power. The US generally doesn't like the UN much - it has appointed a UN ambassador who is very much against the principles of the organisation.

However, most of the world is not in favour of North Korea using nuclear weapons and the UN remains a good mechanism for trying to resolve the situation without going to war with a nuclear power.

Also Russia and China and India and EU will probably not be keen for USA to start invading in their back yard yo USA will probably act with more restraint.

Also USA can't stretch to another guerilla style war at this point in time.

Answer 5

You're wrong...

The United Nations did not resolve to involve themselves in Iraq... they did NOT "ban" the United States from acting. For that matter, the UN hasn't condemned the United States and our Allies for acting...

We're a sovereign nation, and we acted... perhaps not the best action, but lets wait 5, 10, 15 years and see it from a historical position.

Regarding North Korea and Iran... the UN has (or is working on) condemning their actions. Sadly, the UN is not as effective as it was intended at it's creation.

Answer 6

Technically, you ARE wrong. The coalition did not receive an 18th Security Council resolution regarding Iraq, and so just relied on the 17 already passed, including 1441.

There was nothing expressly prohibiting or condemning the coalition action.

I believe North Korea may turn out to be VERY different - depends on how China and Russia vote.

Answer 7

UN is another State of USA just like United Kingdom, what ever USA says goes. USA does not need permission from any Country or Body.

UN in itself is a big joke, who controls it, what power does it have, its just like a club, where members go and enjoy themselves. Members are appointed by Governments and given big salaries to represent them, new members go with high Ideals but within a few days the older members show them how to sit back and enjoy.

Answer 8

Based on earlier UN resolution #1441, the US and British military attacked Iraq crushed Saddam regime and occupied Iraq with the helped of other coalition forces...

Answer 9

The difference is UN had its hands in the pockets of Sadam with the oil for food program.Germany,Russia,and France all sold weapons to Saddam and thats why we had strong oppostition from the UN to go into Iraq and we knew this.Unfortunately the one who should have been prosecuted was Koffe Anon which his son took the rap for.

Answer 10

Actually USA thinks it is UN so whatever decision USA takes it is as of UN.