Isn't It A Fact Thet United Nations Actions Against Saddam Had Suicceeded?

Question

It turned out, as everybody on Earth knew and told you Americans, the United Nations campaign against Saddam had worked very well....exactly as intended in fact.

He'd been stopped menacing his neighbors.
He'd been stopped from killing Kurds.
He was disarmed.
He was embargoed.
He was sanctioned.
He couldn't fly an airplane 10' into the air.
He was being successfully inspected when Bush invaded.
He had no nuclear program.
etc.
The UN succeeded and Bush/GOP snubbed their noses at the UN and invaded anyway. And you are getting just what you deserve.

Answer 1

Sociald - please point out the bit that mandates, endorses or even allows "all necessary means". That bit referred to the resolution of 1990.
Bush himself clearly did not believe this motion afforded him the right to use "all necessary means" otherwise he would not have prepared the subsequent resolution that did authorize force, but was clearly not going to pass the security council (remember the anger at France at the time - silly since Russia and China had also stated they were not going to authorize a war for oil).
Whatsmore this is the ouput of the Security Council - not as you presented it, the United Nations as a whole.
The UN representatives in Iraq, headed by Hans Blix actually advised against the invasion and wanted more time to continue inspections that were indicating that the programs had not been resumed since 1998.

Answer 2

And the UN developed a program called the oil for food that gave money directly to Saddam!? With billions unaccounted for...

And if not for money being partially invested in certain big countries in the EU, we'd not have anything to worry about ie we could have controlled all oil revenues and used humantarian organization in directly funding the sources properly...negating the whole worry that Saddam could have funded a program in the first place.

And don't blame this entirely on Bush...every democratic leader (from Hillary, Kennedy, Kerry to Pelosi) was saying Iraq was a threat...and that they were creating weapons of mass destruction. It was terrible intelligience and a bad show of leadership by the UN, congressional leaders (on both sides), and the admin.

I didn't favor starting the war (atleast at the time and way), but I don't think biasly....

Answer 3

there have been no WMD's. Even Bush has suggested so. What grow to be interior the information daily grow to be the reality that UN inspectors have been in Iraq overseeing the destruction of Al Samoud missiles in March of 2003. 2nd, sanctions are no longer the comparable as authorizing protection rigidity rigidity. while the UN grow to be debating 1441 the U. S. grow to be compelled to do away with language that could have approved protection rigidity action against Iraq. It would not have surpassed in any different case.

Answer 4

Spell check is a cool thing, eh! Anyways, like the UN sanctions the point is moot.

I am the Fringe and what goes around comes around.

Answer 5

Ummm according to the UN themselves no it hadn't.

Heres UN resolution 1441 recapping all the previous resolutions that Iraq failed to comply with and giving member states ( of which the USA was one ) authorization to use all means necessary to deal with it.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Answer 6

all fiction just to take over iraq chiny want it this way but the us paying for it.

Answer 7

And then......................