Was it wrong of the US to go around the UN & attack Iraq, but wrong to go the UN about Iran & N. Korea?

Question

Don't you think it's petty and nonproductive to decide what should've been done months after the fact? Where's the consistancy coming from the left?

Pardon me: "months even years later."

dstr: World Opinion is a funny thing. The guy a few answers beneath us asks me to go to France or Germany. I have been before Bush. News Flash they weren't hip on the US then either. Second France's selling weapons to them and oil contracts were doing the talking. World Opinion is hardly cleaner then our guys'.

Humanist. Funny you crack me up with your heavy heart. LOL

Answer 1

No, at the time it was not wrong because the information we provided (at the time) seemed solid. It was later that we were proven wrong...that Iraq did not have massive stores of WMD...or a massive WMD program. Al Qaeda didn't even come into the picture until AFTER we invaded...so the involvement of Saddam and the henchmen of Al Qaeda was wrong there. (Don't get me wrong, Saddam is an evil man..and needed to be brought to justice...).

In the worlds eyes, we lost our credibility...plus Bush isn't very popular with other countries..particulary in South America, Asia and in parts of Europe. (Visit France and Germany, you will see how much these people despise the current President). It really doesn't matter what they think, but if we are to put a stop to the GENUINE aggressive tendencies of North Korea (who really doesn't have much to lose) and Iran (who is the REAL terrorist threat in the Middle East)...we need to start coming up with SOLID evidence to back up our claim.

Perhaps North Korea is the beginning of a realization that we cannot simply cowboy our way into certain situations unless proof is offered DIRECTLY to the world community.

Lastly, the "left" is making this a political attack ... primarily because of the election season. In my viewpoint, I think both Clinton AND Bush (and Congress, really) screwed up ... since no one took decisive action again the pygmy maniac in North Korea. We should really look at this problem in a bipartisian manner. Our internal bickering is making us look VERY weak in the world community.....

***UPDATE**** I understand they weren't very happy with us before hand...but after we invaded...our popularity with them sunk to a NEW level. Additionally I agree with your point that France has supplied most of these nuts with weapons (even a safe haven or an education)...which is why I could really care less with what these frogs have to think or say.

Just my opinion...thanks.

Answer 2

what makes you the all seeing one to know that Liberals(generally) did not want a tough UN Security decision regarding Iran and N. Korea. Sounds like you just made that up. And to put a better polish on the 1st part, Liberals were in favor of tough UN decisions regarding Iraq also, but the Administration lied or "misrepresented the truth" about Iraq....sure have tough sanctions, but Bush decided to involve us in something that was a lot more complicated...it's like Teddy Roosevelt charging in for glory and taking the hill, but forgetting that the enemy now surrounds him. He did not have full backing of the American people, he may have had the political power to get into the war, but it's his fault for taking that risk. war is risky, that's why it's never a first option.

Answer 3

Well, you need to keep all the facts in mind in regards to Iraq. The U.S. took action in Iraq after about 10 years of letting the U.N. handle things. The U.N. passed resolution after resolution threatening military action if Husein did not allow inspectors to do their work. He stalled and would permit just enough inspection to keep some in the U.N. happy, without ever freeing the inspectors to truly examine things. Further, he abused the humanitarian relief provisions, such as the "Oil for Food" program. So, the U.S. didn't go around the U.N., it actually enforce the U.N. resolutions, along with some 11 - 14 other countries that helped with the invasion into Iraq.

Answer 4

short answer: we can beat them, yet we ought to no longer occupy them afterwords. there's a distinction in defeat and occupying. we can defeat Iran now, regardless of Iraq and Afghanistan. we can defeat Russia or China if we've been in in simple terms Iraq or Afghanistan. (Barring nuclear conflict). we can not take Russia and China the two against us. notwithstanding, defeat ability basically defeating them. If we had to a reconstruction attempt like we are at the instant doing in Iraq, we don't have the forces to try this. we ought to weigh down their militaries, yet we ought to no longer guard the international places. Who could help us could rely on the justifications for the conflict, so because it quite is every person's wager. the challenge worldwide huge is that all of the militia powers have slashed their militaries after the chilly conflict and we want larger militaries greater then ever now. Europe can somewhat guard itself anymore if attacked. the worldwide is in touch approximately Iran however. consistent with Iran's movements, the worldwide could help it in the event that they did something like close off the Persian Gulf. yet there could must be clarification for the worldwide to assist it. the challenge with dropping midsection jap oil superb now's no longer gas as much as plastic. we are greater addicted to plastic then we are to gas-->fairly in drugs. additionally, sick have a glance at your survey, i attempted to respond to the question yet you closed it out till now I published my answer.

Answer 5

We didn't go around the UN on Iraq. We simply Enforced the resolutions Authorized by the UN to deal with Iraq. As far as the UN goes there pretty Much Worthless anyway. We have a Constant Stale Mate With China and Russia on one side and the US and our allies on the other. The UN is a JOKE JOKE JOKE and should be dismantled and rebuilt.

Answer 6

Because our culture is loaded with pragmatists idiots that hold a spaghetti mess of contradictions in their heads.

When our glorious UN resolution -- that the US embraces -- at the outset says we wont use military action against NK, I am convinced that blackmail works. What's the downside for these [hostile regime] guys?

Answer 7

the problem with they way you are thinking is this...

A. Dems do want to work through the UN... so why do they say this? proceed to B....

B. when they are getting onto Republicans about it...it's only because of their inconsistency with the whole UN thing... we're ribbing you... for the most part (there could be some crazy libs out there who want to go to war... but they are the vast minority)

basically... why are you guys trying to work through the UN all of a sudden?

ESPECIALLY when N. Korea and iran seem to be greater threats with nuclear development... (rib, rib, rib)... now I don't want you to attack... I'm just asking WTF?

Answer 8

North Korea got no oil and the strategic advantage of posessing that real estate is ngligible. We don't intend to use it as a Gateway for another attack on the communists again do we.

Answer 9

No he took the right course this time...where was this mind set when we needed it?
A better way to phrase your Question would have been..
Why is Bush realizing how important World support is now? or
Why did Bush ignore World opinion and get us Bogged down in a illegal invasion in Iraq despite evidence to the contrary?

Answer 10

No. A good chunk of the UN was getting paid by Saddam (in the form of oil profit kickbacks) to keep quiet on any inspections of WMDs.

Kim Jong IL is not lining the pockets of ambassadors.

Plus, it keeps the liberals happy for a while.