Why do Iraq war supporters always bring up UN resolutions?

Question

I am an isolationist and don't really care for the UN. I think it is a dysfunctional and irrelevant organization. So why does the US care about UN resolutions? If the UN had problems with Saddam, why didn't they take care of it themselves? If UN resolutions was a sufficient justification for the war, why did basically the entire world except for Great Britain abondon us?

My point is, if the UN makes resolutions, then dammit the UN needs to enforce them. I don't like to see US soldiers die to enforce UN resolutions. Nor do I like to see my rather hefty tax bill paying for such actions.

Right before the war I was speaking with a friend of mine who is a hardcore conservative and an instructor at West Point with a rank of lieutenant colonel. We both agreed Sadam was a complete bastard. I questioned what is the exit strategy. He said that is always the problem and predicted we would have a significant presence there for at least a decade and possibly heavy fighting. It seems he was right.

Kimmy, please read the bipartisan 911 commission report which clearly states that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I fully supported our actions in Afghanistan and Al Qeada throughout the world. I am an isolationist, not a pacifist.

Ah Miss Kitty, I see I am now on your blocked user list. By doing so, you show yourself to be a hypocrite of the highest order based on how you complain about lib tactics on Y!A.

Answer 1

Before the last U.N. weapons inspection team left Iraq, they had located and destroyed 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 tons of chemical agents.
Even Scott Ritter, in a press release extremely critical of the United States' plans to invade Iraq, admitted that even though the inspectors had located laboratories, production equipment and most of the agents produced, he could not verify the destruction of all of Saddam's chemical arsenals.
This intelligence along with Saddam's history of using these weapons (some on his own citizens) and dismal compliance to the inspections was reason enough following the events of 9/11 to make absolutely sure that none of Saddam's chemical arsenals got into the terrorists' possession. At the time, the administration could ASSUME that Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions and destroyed all of their chemical arsenals - or the administration could invade Iraq and KNOW. I'll take the latter every time when the safety and security of Americans is at risk.
Despite the UN's dismal record and performance of late - and the scandals - the world needs an organization where the different countries can try to hash out their grievances before they start shooting at each other. Perhaps in the future - with new leadership - the UN can once again become a viable alternative to war.

Answer 2

The UN is not in the business of enforcement. See Rwanda and Darfur for proof of that. The UN has been controversial for so many years I think people just get tired of hearing about it. And accept it. We Americans are like that.
The UN did not find WMD evidence. Bush found the proof and we all know now he wanted it so bad he could have found WMD in my purse had he decided to.
Talk about hefty taxes, how about George W asking for an additional 50 billion tax dollars today? That should shiver your timbers.
I'm going to Google isolationist.

Answer 3

What I find ironic is that we went after Saddam for ignoring UN resolutions, but we went against the recommendations of the UN to do so.

Answer 4

The UN resolutions for Iraq DID NOT authorise the invasion. It was fiddled by the US administration to appear so. Anyone who says it did is a liar

Answer 5

I'm going to assume you're being sincere, and not an america hating liberal demonrat. The UN has never enforced anything, its countries like the USA that does the dirty work. The reason contries abandon us, like South Korea, is because they're chicken. They know the USA will not hurt them, and they know the muslim terrorists will. As far as being an isolationist, you must not have heard of 9/11. We left them alone, and they planned and trained for years, and they hit us, at their convenience. Isolationism just doesn't work. You have to realize that.

Answer 6

It is not the "Iraq war supporters" who bring up the U.N., but the Liberals. Who do you think created the U.N.?
The U.S. is the chief souce of funding for the U.N.; the U.S. is the chief source of military power for the U.N. Without the U.S., the U.N. is nothing.
It would be better for the world and for world peace to demolish the U.N.

Answer 7

Because of their ineffectiveness in dealing with Saddam we went to war. I hardly feel they are worth paying for now, they should be dissolved.

Answer 8

the u.n didnt sort iraq out cos it wasnt a threat,if your worried about the deaths of soldiers and your taxes (tho i think the latter is probably your problem) then blame your government

Answer 9

bush turned his back on the UN and mooned them......they are all traumatized and will need years of therapy

Answer 10

I think you are one of these--
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP150807