One of them is illogical (Bush or the UN)...you tell me which.
2006-12-11 10:23:45 · 15 answers · asked by Jim Bob 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
your right only if bush would have been like Clinton.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, accepting Bin Laden when offered by the Sudan in 1996 for example, an estimated 6,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now injured or dead would be alive today.
sooner or later Saddam would have been stopped from his atrocities
2006-12-11 10:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it iwll be unwise to call the UN illogical Un does what the member states make it do...the reason why PRez. Bush had to act because diplomacy would have takne another 5 years to make Iraq come to terms or secure the permission of all nations to take action in iraq..hirtory judges ahrshly against those who say the danger coming and failed to act ..i this new wrold we have entered the only path the peace is the path of action..we could not have let saddam blackmail us with Weapons of mass destruction..and the world do what the fanatic terrorist want....the only reason why US act was actually under the UN charter ....The article 51 of the UN charter allows the right of pre-emptive strike to all countries....the statements and threats by the iraqi dictator were enough incentive to act
2006-12-13 08:07:11 · answer #2 · answered by Aayush S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're both illogical.
Bush didn't listen to the UN when the UN said "NO WAR IN IRAQ". But Bush did listen to the UN resolutions making them a reason for war. So he's listening to the UN on one thing but not the other.
The UN made resolutions against Saddam but didn't do anything about them. However, the UN opposed Bush when he supposedly wanted to do something about broken resolutions (even though I personally believe that resolutions played no role in the war).
Both Bush and the UN are illogical and neither should be taken seriously.
2006-12-11 18:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
UN (and the rest of the world) did not think that Iraq's breaking a UN mandate deserved an invasion. Bush did. He also had other reasons like WMDs, and then the need to remove a dictator from power, and then establishing democracy in Iraq, etc.
2006-12-11 18:27:26 · answer #4 · answered by ramshi 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The UN didn't back 17 resolutions. Why? You forget that those who had a say (did anyone say France and Russia) were literally in bed with Sadam, making millions of dollars from the food/oil scam. I'd say a confict of interest. We're smart enough not to follow the crowd jumping off the roof into the empty swimming pool.
2006-12-11 18:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The UN is very nonconfrontational, and they kept putting off or ignoring what had to be done. They kept giving Saddam second chances he didn't deserve, and the US did something about it instead of sitting in a room begging a dictator to do what he's asked.
2006-12-11 18:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by Adriana 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
UN resolutions can only be acted on by or on behalf of the UN.NOT individual member states.As the UN did not back the invasion of Iraq,Bush cannot use that as a legitimate excuse.That is one of the reasons this invasion was illegal
2006-12-11 18:28:26 · answer #7 · answered by rosbif 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I get sick of Bush making himself look like an ace! I hear a new reason every week.Just bring the men and women home!We don't listen to the UN anyways
2006-12-11 18:27:19 · answer #8 · answered by Monet 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
The U.N. of course.
It's too bad, really. It COULD be a worthwhile organization if it wasn't overrun with hypocritical socialists.
2006-12-11 18:28:16 · answer #9 · answered by Michael 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN has never made any logical sense. Sodom funded and housed terrorists, who cares what the UN wants or doesn't want?
2006-12-11 18:26:13 · answer #10 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋