We invaded Iraq against the desire of the U.N ....... and used the fact that Saddam defied U.N. sanctions as our justification for our invasion.
Double Standard???
Is it really our right to impose our will on the rest of the world?
2007-01-09 06:55:01 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
the UN is a tool of convience, sometimes I wonder how we'd react if UN peacekeeprs appeared on our shores
2007-01-09 07:31:04 · answer #1 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You DO know that the resolutions that Saddam violated contained provisions for use of force should Saddam fail to comply, right? I have sourced the resolution for your edification.
So, other than Kofi Annan getting his knickers in a twist over this, how do you justify your opinion that it went against the UN?
As for imposing our will - if a country has the power to pursue their own self interest, or the interest of the greater world, and they do not do so, they have failed their country and the world with their lack of courage.
Consider the inaction of the UN and US in Rwanda and Darfur. Is is the right thing that nobody "imposed" their will on them to stop the murder of 100's of 1000's of people?
2007-01-09 15:11:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have seriously mischaracterized the facts.
There was no resolution forbidding it, and 30 countries were part of the coalition.
There were 17 resolutions Saddam disobeyed - had he complied with the international community (something apparently very important to you), he'd still be in his palaces and not swinging from a rope.
Iraq had also violated a ceasefire with the US, negotiated after a war the UN specifically asked us to spill our blood for.
Clinton had no UN authorization to go to Bosnia or Kosovo.
2007-01-09 15:16:35 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kel Kel,
Bush invaded Iraq to enforce a UN resolution. The UN was starting to cross the line to irrelevance. Why? It made too many resolutions that were not enforced. If you don't act on your beliefs, you are irrelevant. So you should be happy. Bush SAVED the UN!
2007-01-09 20:28:37 · answer #4 · answered by WJ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In your particular example, it is the UN that is being hypocritical and inconsistent, not us. We enforced a UN resolution that the UN neglected in its duties to enforce itself (BTW, I was and am totally against the war).
The UN has turned itself into a meaningless, useless, impotent entity, which is a shame. What is the point of having a UN if they never do anything but talk?
2007-01-09 15:07:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only reason the UN was against the invasion was that we would expose their oil for food scam that robbed the Iraqi people of billions and lined the pockets of UN fat cats.
2007-01-09 15:03:27 · answer #6 · answered by slodana2003 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're like the big brother that nobody likes. There's no one taller or fatter (seriously) or stronger than us on the field, so that means we're in charge, right? It's all the short, skinny, younger ones that have to obey us (hehe... US... get it...? I know, I'm lame...). And we're going to keep beating those little guys down because we don't want any competition. After all, we're the biggest superpower, a terrorist in our own right. I'd be scared of us if I lived somewhere else.
That's kinda how the US works. I don't approve of it either, by the way.
2007-01-09 15:06:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋