from the United Nations indicated that there was sufficient evidence of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction for multiple resolutions for intervention to deal with the threat. Now the United Nations says that there is sufficient evidence to warrant multiple resolutions for intervention to deal with the threat of anthropogenic global warming. Is this United Nations warning any more accurate than the previous one?
2007-02-09 06:04:36 · 9 answers · asked by Dr.T 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Actual research shows that the UN did investigate and conclude that Iraq had WMDs. The naysayers say they didn't based soley on their hate for Bush. And likewise the Al Goreaholics are worshiping every word (lie) that he preaches, and even now the UN has "jumped on that bandwagon"
2007-02-09 06:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Blitzer committe came to no such conclusion. The purpose of the United Nations is to act as a forum between nations. If one of the nations does not want to talk to anybody no one can make them. Diplomacy should always be tried until the parties have exhausted all possible hope of avoiding a confrontation and then try to keep the confrontation small. All out war is expensive both in terms of spending money and in people. Unfortunately there was a strong desire for war with Iraq we did not give it a chance. By the way we found no WMD because they didn't exist. The Administration, giving them courtesy of the doubt that they may have helped plan it, relied on a thread of intellegence and didn't even take time to follow up on that intellegence to see if it was true. They didn't need to follow up as they wanted to take down Saddam Hussein and this was just the excuse given to fool Congress and the American and British people into a war.
2007-02-09 06:23:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An inconvenient truth......libs don't like to point that out except when the vote is in their favor. The U.N. is a political organization and subject to the same political pressure as any other. They are most effective when standing in one spot. That way they won't break much. And the limited times they are successful, they use the U.S. as the head of the spear. Big surprise.
2007-02-09 06:18:50 · answer #3 · answered by Rich S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The United Nations did not gather the pre-war intel. The CIA did.
2007-02-09 06:08:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hmm what happened to those UN weapon inspectors Sadddam kept throwing out? did they not actually work for the UN?
2007-02-09 06:12:04 · answer #5 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The United State's info was not from the UN, but was from their own and through the countless information of other countries (which were obviously wrong).
2007-02-09 06:09:28 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The two entities gathered the two different evidence types you're mentioning.
UN = global warming
CIA = Iraq-War
2007-02-09 06:11:57 · answer #7 · answered by Kookoo Bananas 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The premise of your question is wrong. It was Bush, not the UN, who said Iraq had WMD.
If Bush lied about WMD, why would you believe him when he and his oilmen backers claim global warming is a myth?
2007-02-09 06:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
nice try, but it doesn't work. the cia gathered the info.
2007-02-09 06:11:05 · answer #9 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋