2007-01-24 17:03:02 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no they would have solved it diplomatically without all the bloodshed and they would have made sure of the facts first and not accepted lies
2007-01-24 17:07:40 · answer #1 · answered by billc4u 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The UN is not an attack force they are strictly to guard and keep the peace they do not engage. they withdraw and wait for the military forces to take over. They are not a International Military to take over any and all territories they wish or attack anyone they are made up of the forces by the governing bodies of the UN and that is all the countries that are members. They are to keep world peace only. But the UN soldiers have been killed in attacks on them on numerous occasions. Look up UN in the www.history.com and click on to military and war and you will get all the info you need currently and past history who is a member who isn't etc. Good Hunting?
2007-01-25 01:43:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They would eventually have written 2 or 3 (or 4 or 5) more resolutions condemning Iraq and Hussein for failing to follow the guidelines established by THE REST OF THE WORLD and then, quietly, left, bored, as if nothing had ever happened. After the crooked leadership of the UN pocketed as much money as they could.
Wasn't Kofi Annin a good Secretary General? Can anyone name one accomplishment of the UN other than being investigated for corruption?
2007-01-25 01:14:58 · answer #3 · answered by Sarge1572 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The entire arguement for the war on Iraq was based on the claim that Saddam had WMD and that he had ties to al-Quaida. Since we know neither assertion was correct, there's no reason to think the UN would have attacked Iraq. Nor would the Congress and the people of the United States have allowed the invasion had we not been lied to.
2007-01-25 02:50:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The UN has never attacked anything without the US being involved. Look at Rwanda, hundreds of thousands died and a UN force was in the country. The Canadian general in charge begged for orders to intervene.
2007-01-25 01:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by jack w 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
We had an international force invading Iraq and we used a disinformation campaign to catch the Iraqi army off guard.
2007-01-25 01:11:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not.
The UN is run by incompetent thugs. Several of them were on Saddam's payroll, including Kofi's son.
Why liberals want to place the future of the United States of America in the hands of the United Nations is mindboggling.
-Aztec276
2007-01-25 01:09:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. ever happen, just as the UN will never act against Iran or N Korea.
UN=Useless Nitwits.
2007-01-25 01:11:46 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
With the situation as it stood? No. Don't forget though, they did authorize Gulf War I, so it is quite possible Saddam would have done something to bring that on if given a chance.
-Dio
2007-01-25 01:08:55 · answer #9 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Folks, gentlemen, scholars and LIBS! The united nothings stopped the Israelis from knocking Hizbollah out of Lebanon and now Hizbollah is threatening the duly elected government of Lebanon!
Hey Hey hey---Go UN------------To HELL!!!!!!
Don't ever criticize the US again!!!!!!
2007-01-25 03:40:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN is worthless....
They are a bunch of handsitters...
All talk no action...
all under the name of "peace and unity"
mmmmm sounds warm and fuzy.... lets all hold hands and give hugs...
2007-01-25 02:45:50 · answer #11 · answered by Mr. Agappae 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋