English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i need it for our assignment on the comparison of the two attacks on iraq between the recent one & the 1991 in relation to the participation of United Nation

2006-11-28 01:43:25 · 5 answers · asked by dragon scale 1 in News & Events Current Events

5 answers

The 1991 action was, no doubt.

The more recent one is, well, murky at best. There was no action specifically authorizing the action, however Resolution 1441 provided for "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with the disarmament requirements.

That's pretty vague, and can be read either way, and that's exactly what happened. Attempts to clarify the scope of the consequences -- in either direction -- were doomed to fail because of the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

So, what it boils down to is this: for the 2003 invasion, the UN didn't say no, and they maybe said yes. When the time came to make a clear statement, the UN was unable to do so.

2006-11-28 02:38:07 · answer #1 · answered by Teekno 7 · 0 0

The 1991 one was. The recent one was not. George Bush (the younger one) submitted something to the UN for approval, but France (which has a seat on the five-member top council, I forget the name of it but each country has veto power--the countries are the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia) voted it down. More UN countries sided with France than with the United States and so the UN didn't approve of the Iraqi war.

The first one in 1991 was approved because Saddam Hussein had ordered the invasion of the Arab nation of Kuwait, and nearly every nation in the UN approved of stepping in his way on that one.

2006-11-28 01:53:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As far as I remember the news, the 2003 attack was not sanctioned by the UN, due to Russia & China's veto (I think France vetoed it too). The 1991 one was originally sanctioned by the UN, but some of the same states who sanctioned it called for a ceasefire after it became clear that the main objectives of the UN could be acheived peacefully and in a gentlemen manner.

2006-11-28 01:54:06 · answer #3 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0 0

UN is useless because of the Security Council's dominance by the super power countries. They have the veto power. They do whatever they like.

2006-11-28 19:42:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

this invasion, no the one in 1991 yes

2006-11-28 15:41:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers