>>Your argument might hold more water if the invasion had been sanctioned, and even led, by the UN. Unless the US fancies itself as the unilateral enforcer of UN resolutions, then the response must be initiated by and sanctioned by the UN in order to be justified as being on the behalf of the 'world community'.<<
False. Read the U.N. speech. The United States recognized two fundamental things giving it and the rest of the world an obligation to attack Iraq: 1. Several U.N. resolutions demanding a certified Iraqi disarmament, and 2. Iraq’s rejection of those resolutions. Bush made the point that the U.N. was developed to act on behalf of the world to stop precisely what Saddam was doing. He also pointed out that the U.N. had defaulted on its responsibilities to the world and that should it continue to default, the United States would act alone, without U.N. approval.
The U.S. did not act to uphold a particular U.N. resolution. It acted to uphold the principles the resolution was supposed to protect. But when the U.N. voted not to uphold its own resolutions, thereby declaring that the principles were unworthy of the effort, the United States decided to act alone. WMD’s were used only to show how urgent it was to act. But the fact of Iraqi recalcitrance, repeated lies and shady dealings had already long justified an attack.
>>Instead, we simply thumbed our noses at the UN, because they would not play by our rules and timeline.<<
The U.N. thumbed its nose at itself, passing multiple resolutions against Iraq and then failing to uphold them. The United States had simply lost faith in the U.N., believing, rightly, that the U.N. did not have the guts to back up its bark with a bite.
>>Which is fine, but you can't then go back and claim that we're doing it on the behalf of the UN.<<
I never said any such thing. The U.N. is not a state apart from the U.S. It was developed to act on behalf of the world, including the U.S. It failed to do what it was designed to do, and the undeniable proof of this failure is seen in Saddam’s tacit, yet bold ongoing 11 year rejection of the U.N.’s multiple resolutions against Iraq. But the failure of the U.N. did not eliminate the interests the U.N. was developed to protect. Those interests yet persisted and reports of an Iraqi WMD program, whether accurate or not, underscored their persistence. So the U.S. acted to protect them alone.
>>And, in the court of world opinion, more nations and people are against our actions than for them. So, you can't appeal to the wider non-UN 'community' as justification.<<
The flaw in your thinking is the flaw we find in many people. You look upon the U.N. as a state separate from the rest of the world. The fact is, the U.N. is a world body, the support of which comes in large part from the United States. If it passes resolutions to protect U.S. interests, amongst others, and then repeatedly fails to protect those interests, then the U.S. MUST act without the U.N.
That is what happened re: Iraq. Bush was precisely right to do what he did and it is quite shameful that so many so-called “Americans” persist in demanding he obey the deeply flawed U.N. Had Bush followed the U.N. and it turned out that Iraq’s refusal to heed the U.N. resolutions was due to its WMD program, and had Iraq used WMD’s against us, you and the rest of those who think like you would have never forgiven him. Bush had an obligation to the U.S. to see that those particular U.N. resolutions were heeded. After all, the resolutions were passed to in part protect the interests of the U.S.
>>Just as in US law, there needs to be a system of justice, along with a pre-defined enforcement process, that the world can live by. When countries become vigilantes, then they bare the responsibility for producing the proof that their actions were justified.<<
Most pathetic. You are calling America, your own country, a vigilante nation, and you completely overlook the U.N.’s failure to uphold the laws it passed on behalf of the world, which includes the United States. The U.S. did not fail here. The U.N. failed the U.S. Bush simply refused to allow the U.N.'s failure to result in another American catastrophe. Better to attack a country that thumbs its nose at the world and find no WMD's than to follow the U.N. and die.
>>Based on the UN resolutions, that proof is WMD. Back to square one.<<
Quite false. Based upon the UN resolutions, that proof is certified disarmament. The U.N. failed repeatedly to effect this certification. So the U.S. did it. We were entirely correct in doing so because the apparent threat and the implication to America it presented was just too great to be ignored. You are being wondrously short-sighted, my friend. |
