UN resolutions started in 1990!
Apparently we are suffering form mass selective memory ?
The UN had 13 inspections of Iraqi, biological and chemical weapons, UN Inspectors were turned away and twarted from their assignments many times,by Iraqi officials; it was in the news daily before the war
My point is, if the US was wrong about WMDs, then so were the entire body of the United Nations who totally supported sanctions against Saddam and Iraq 16 times.
Why has this suddenly become some kind of secret?
2007-04-29 03:58:18 · 9 answers · asked by Renegade 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because it fits best with their agenda's.
2007-04-29 04:01:14 · answer #1 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There were no WMD's. Even Bush has said so. What was in the news daily was the fact that UN inspectors were in Iraq overseeing the destruction of Al Samoud missiles in March of 2003. Second, sanctions are not the same as authorizing military force. When the UN was debating 1441 the US was forced to remove language that would have authorized military action against Iraq. It wouldn't have passed otherwise.
2007-04-29 04:15:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
See, when CNN and MSNBC says "We're keepin' them honest." that doesn't apply to them, just the government. They choose not to remember the fact that the U.N. tried to send in inspectors WHICH Hussein toyed with,letting them in then kicking them out. This starting to sound familiar? The problem is that its easier to blame the mean old U.S. that people are dieing nowadays. People, I don't think understand what's involved with a "real" war (even though, I know, if you ask a vet of Iraq or Afghan they say it was war, and it was/is) the sacrafices and such.
If we were invaded tomorrow by China, and Bush were to ask for a declaration of war, all of Congress would agree. 4 months later, we'd have Kerry, Murtha and Pelosi screaming that this war is unjust because we have U.S. soldiers dieing on U.S. soil because Bush is too strongheaded. Not because we were invaded.
As for the U.N. yes it is worthless. Purely because of the Iraq War and how they stood by their "morals." They were sort of always p*****s, but this showed it. Majorly. Thats part of why you don't see Bush doing much for Darfur or Somalia. He'd be praised for a while, but then when theres still violence it'd be his fault.
2007-04-29 04:46:45 · answer #3 · answered by m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So its okay to go to war to enforce sanctions and resolutions put on by the UN, while at the same time saying the UN is useless. I do not understand the logic of the Bushies.
2007-04-29 04:03:52 · answer #4 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Just prior to the latest Iraq war, the U.N. inspectors openly stated that they had full access and found absolutely no evidence of weapons or programs to make them.
2007-04-29 04:03:13 · answer #5 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because it doesn't jibe with their accepted talking points that Saddam was in reality simply a misunderstood Eagle Scout. He used to help little old ladies across Baghdad streets until the bad old US came in and toppled him for absolutely no reason.
2007-04-29 04:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The same as most all the LIberals have forgotten that They Approved going to war...Very small minds and short memories. I thank God, Im not a Liberal
2007-04-29 04:16:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's a moot point since Bush decided to ignore them as well.
2007-04-29 04:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by redphish 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Exactly.....
Funny how suddenly there is such a decline in the truth.
2007-04-29 04:12:12 · answer #9 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋