>>No. The U.N. acts in the interest of all nations, including the 'accused' nation.<<
And when it fails to act in the interest of the U.S., it is ineffective. Where potential WMD’s are concerned, it is dangerous.
>>It is the international justice system, so to speak, and has a process of its own. That process is too ill defined at this time, without adequate enforcement, but rather than thumb our noses at it, we should be working to improve it.<<
The U.N. had for 12 years issued resolution after resolution demanding Iraq’s disarmament. Giving Saddam two to four weeks to prepare for inspections and then 45 days to lie as he did previously while the U.N. just wrung its hands was perceived by Bush as utter nonsense, in view of 911 and reports of Iraqi WMD’s. Bush was right.
>>In this particular case, the feeling amongst a good number of the U.N. members was that the inspections should be given a set amount of additional time (if memory serves, there was a group of nations calling for an additional 45 days).<<
Bush obviously had no faith in a group that for 12 years had issued resolutions and did nothing about them, many of whose members were actually dealing with the Iraqis. He was exactly right to have lost faith. The only thing that could have rekindled his faith was U.N.’s support for an ultimatum, proving that the U.N. was not filled with a bunch of hot air.
>>IMO, we should have pursued a strategy where we got those countries to say that they would support an action against Iraq if we waited that amount of time.<<
Well, that’s your opinion. You are entitled to it. But you are not the POTUS and you do not have the information he has. You are alive. The POTUS has not yet done anything to harm you. Had he done nothing, had he waited 45 days, you may well be dead.
>>In the view of 9/11, yes, if there were evidence of an immediate threat (that could not wait 45 days),<<
Then I win, because Bush had evidence of mobile labs and much other WMD activity that in 45 days would have, in his mind, made it more difficult to acquire. Iraq had 12 years to prepare for inspections. TWELVE YEARS. That alone proved the faultiness of the U.N. and yet another resolution. But when the U.N. passed a resolution declaring that Iraqi would face severe consequences should it not certifiably disarm, and when Iraq thumbed its nose at that resolution, causing the U.N. to call for yet another 45 day resolution, America had to cut bait. The U.N. had proven itself impotent.
>>However, events seem to have proven the UN, and not the US, correct. Given that there is NO compelling evidence of WMD<<
Events have proven nothing at all against the U.S. The U.N. had proven itself unworthy of authority over U.S. policy long before we set foot in Iraq. Even without proof of WMD’s the logic is squarely in our favor.
>>We cannot go around pre-emptively attacking nations that we believe are threats based on faulty or trumped-up intelligence.<<
If those nations are known to have WMD’s at some point in time and have a worldwide mandate to disarm, and if those nations should then shoot the moon at the mandate, then we have a right to attack those nations. The whole world has the right, even should it fail itself.
>>Given the current state of the search, it is apparent that either Bush was misled as to the urgency, or he has a hair trigger. Which is it?<<
This is quite fallacious and it betrays a blind wish simply to hang the President. There is at one other possibility here. After all, due to the extreme failure of the U.N., Saddam had 12 long years to prepare for this day.
>>Why couldn't we have waited that additional 45 days as a means of getting the support necessary to make it a UN sanctioned action?<<
You really do not get it. You act as if all we had to do was wait for another 45 days and all would have been well. You literally act as if the U.N. has integrity, even though powerful member nations were literally trading with Iraq despite their U.N. obligations not to do so. You act as if a 45 day resolution would have saved the day, despite the fact that just a few weeks earlier everyone was claiming the prior “severe penalty” resolution would save it (which it didn’t). The U.N. is corrupt and it refused to uphold any of its resolutions. The U.S. simply could not afford to be strung along by such a limp-wrested and corrupt organization, certainly not in the face of 911 and reports of Iraqi WMD’s. C’mon maaan. Be reasonable.
>>My opinion is that Bush did not want the UN to go along, in that he wanted to establish a precedent of the US moving against threats without UN approval.<<
My opinion is Bush fully expected the UN would not go along because by the time he asked for UN support he had long lost faith in that body. He asked for support nevertheless to give it the chance to fulfill its obligations. It failed.
>>Well, I'm not sure if that is a better method, or if there needs to be reform in the UN. Penalizing nations that have human rights violations may not work, because China is at the top of that list. Given the current world situation, a UN without China is not a sufficient quorum to deal with these issues, especially North Korea.<<
We may deal with nations such as China, but not as part of a body in which portions of our sovereignty are sacrificed. China should have no official control over U.S. policy because it is hostile to U.S. philosophy. China simply does not have the credibility to tell the U.S. anything. Its people aren’t even free.
>>Incorrect analogy. Bush went to the cops, and the cops said that there is a process that needs to be followed; investigation, etc, according to the law.<<
False. When Bush went to the cops, the cops described the process and then refused to implement it. So the analogy is perfect as it is. AFTER their refusal to implement the law they had established, the cops then called for another law (!), arbitrarily declaring that 45 days would be useful to (perhaps) implement it. That is just no way for an authority to seek justice. It is simply unfair to everyone.
>>I believe that we should have played the thread of diplomacy longer than we did, got more nations on our side, and isolated France from the rest of the world.<<
This is just naïve pal. So nice and easy, as if France would just sit around and be isolated when it and others were literally cheating against the world. C’mon man. You ain’t bein real here. It’s a messy business, always is. All during those 45 extra days Saddam would have done just enough to make Blix think he was making “progress,” and all along those multiple U.N. resolutions would have gone ignored. Bush had already been there and did not want to go there again. And I don’t blame him.
>>Sure, it might have meant delaying the start for 45 or 60 days, but given the current situation, that's looking a whole lot better than just us and the Brits.<<
It looks quite nice as it is, pal. We have a few hiccups here and there in Iraq, but that fact is, we are in control and the house is getting cleaned. Oh sure, the Europeans are whining; but lets face it, those guys have very low sperm counts. And as long as we are willing to pop caps into the Arabs, they will sit idly by.
>>I think we'll have to agree to disagree, again.<<
Eeeyup. |
