You ask why I don't answer you. The answer is that is that I do, and it gets repetitive. This time I'll answer in capitals! I BLAME THE US, AND THE WORLD FOR SITTING BY WHILE GENOCIDE TAKES PLACE!
We are getting to the bottom of the problem in communication here. Thank you for the capital letters. Now here are mine.
THE QUESTION WAS NOT WHETHER YOU BLAME THE US!
Fred - You are answering a question that was not asked. That is why you think you are answering my questions, but you are NOT.
This was the question I asked, which immediately preceded the part you posted:
Just how did the UN make it to your list of "bad guys"?
For your information, I also blamed the world for standing by for years while genocide was taking place in Europe. However, it is beyond pale to try to make an analogy of that to Iraq's position of today, since THERE IS NO GENOCIDE TAKING PLACE NOW, which would necessitate immediate action.
Even less logical is to try to blame the UN for not supporting the US aggression onto Iraq at this point, on grounds that they are "irrelevant" because they are standing by and watching a genocide that is NOT taking place, probably because they believe war is the least desirable of all outcomes. Amazing hypocrisy.
I never thought I would live to see such illogical arguments take center stage in such important decisions in international arena as invasion of a country that has never posed a threat to your own.
Another question from the post you replied to, which you have not thought to reply was:
Do you think, for example, the US will [agree to an international body that judges governments according to what atrocities they commit]? Hell, your country even withdrew from the International Criminal Court, because Americans would not be exempt from it!
The UN could have enforced 1441.
Fred - Please do not hate me for saying this, but this is the last time I am answering this question, for, frankly, I am sick of saying the same things and am beginning to worry about both my ability to communicate and your ability to understand and retain counterarguments.
Here it goes:
(1) Res 1441 was a UN Security Council resolution, not a US bilateral agreement with Iraq. As such, only the UN Security Council could decide what to do about it in case of its material breach.
(2) Nowhere in Res 1441 is there a clause threatening war, invasion, or anything remotely reminiscent of these two words. It says appropriate measures will be taken. Those measures can only be decided on by the UN Security Council, who issued the resolution. Not the US.
(3) If the US did not have such itchy feet to go immediately to war, other ways of enforcement could be devised. But no. US wanted war and they got it. |
