2007-03-22 06:08:11 · 14 answers · asked by Shazaam 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why did the UN pass 17 resolutions in 12 years that they had no intention of backing up?
Why didn't the UN stop the genocide in Rwanda? Darfur?
2007-03-22 06:11:26 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is a point of contention that Bush "went against the UN". A resolution passed by the security council threatened "dire consequenses" if Iraq did not comply. It did not define "dire consequences" and in fact only used that term because the US and UK knew that France, China and Russia (who all like the US and UK have a veto) would not authorise force. Rather than issue another resolution, one that did explicitly authorise force, which again was unlikely to pass, the US decided to use the previous resolution as justification. Arguments that this was inevitable are nonsense as the same language has been used in resolutions against other countries (including Israel) that have been ignored. At the point of the invasion UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and there was also contention regarding the degree of cooperation they were recieving. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector opposed the war as he believed his operation was getting cooperation and would be successful.
As for the absence of an exit policy. The administration clearly misjudged the attitude of Iraqi citizens and also of the ability to form a working government. American troops have not been universally "welcomed with open arms" as Bush claimed they would. Sectarian differences in Iraq, controlled by Saddam, have resurfaced. The Iraqi government has proven difficult to form let alone manage due to corruption and the sectarian differences.
Personally I do believe GWB had an exit strategy. It was however short-sighted, based upon ignorance, and has subsequently failed.
2007-03-22 13:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're question is falacious and non sensical. First of all the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution calling for Saddam to fully disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors, or face "serious consequences" He didn't comply, so he faced the consequences.
Are you saying the UN wanted the US to go in, but with an exit strategy? The strategy was to be victorious, and help the iraqis rebuild their country. That's not how it worked out. It worked perfectly in Kurdish Iraq. The economy in that area is booming, with construction going on all over. There's no violence either. Total US deaths in Kurdish Iraq are "0". Perhaps the administration should have anticipated the problems between sunni and shiite. The plan wasn't to go in and get caught up in a civil war with no end in sight. To suggest that is naive, or disingenuous.
2007-03-22 13:32:34 · answer #3 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Against the United Nations?
The United Nations passed 17 resolutions regarding Iraq. The UN asked Saddam 17 times to comply. Saddam defied the UN 17 times.
2007-03-22 13:13:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The point of the Iraq war was never to exit, but to kick butt take names, and get an ally for the USA in the middle east, other than Israel, to better help in the war on terror. USA never leaves a country we have fought in. We build bases and continue to keep the innocent peoples of that nation free, and branch out from there. Remember WWI, WWII and Germany? Has America ever left Germany once we kicked their bloody Nazi butts? God Bless our good nation that we call America. If the rest of the world can't learn what FREEDOM is on their own, we are just going to have to teach it to them!
2007-03-22 13:22:46 · answer #5 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush went in after the 17 resolutions produced by the UN didn't work, go figure the UN is useless and we should get out of there, and because he hasn't explained and exit strategy to you or the insurgence means he doesn't have one? Get off the kool-aide dude!
2007-03-22 13:15:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush wanted revenge against Saddam for trying to kill his father. Although Iraq had destroyed their WMD as required by the UN (and verified by UN and US inspectors), this still left Saddam in charge.
2007-03-22 13:19:58 · answer #7 · answered by William S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush administration walked away from diplomacy as a strategy to press our goals as a nation, and, used force, instead. It was a disasterous use of American power.
2007-03-22 13:12:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
why do ignorant sheeple ask stupid questions, the exit strategy will be used when it's time to exit. we are still killing terrorist over there. when they are all dead and the threat from the lunatic towelhead extreemist is gone, we'll come home. if it were up to the un, we would all be dead, look at darfur. stop listening to the political bull*^#%!!!
2007-03-22 13:52:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
because the UN gave Iraq one last chance and they didn't take but the UN didn't have the balls to do what they said they would but Bush did
2007-03-22 13:13:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋