"The U.N. was supposed to act on behalf of the U.S. and failed to do so"
No. The U.N. acts in the interest of all nations, including the 'accused' nation. 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.
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). 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. Then, I believe, France would have had to back down, or face standing against a much larger contingent of nations.
"So, in view of 911 and reports of Iraqi WMDs, the U.S. did the only thing it could reasonably do—acquire the assurance for itself."
In the view of 9/11, yes, if there were evidence of an immediate threat (that could not wait 45 days), then the U.N. should have agreed with the US to take action right away. However, events seem to have proven the UN, and not the US, correct. Given that there is NO compelling evidence of WMD that are an immediate threat to the US, it turns out that we were wrong. Unless we find that compelling evidence, we will still be wrong. This, by the way, was the original point I was making that started this thread of discussion.
We cannot go around pre-emptively attacking nations that we believe are threats based on faulty or trumped-up intelligence. However, if a mistake is made, better to make it in the context of a UN coalition than as a couple of nations.
"When it appeared the enemy had raised the gun and was near to pulling the trigger, Bush simply shot first and only now is asking questions"
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? 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?
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. If so, this is a very dangerous policy. Nations need to have some assurances that there is a reasonable system that they can rely on to mediate these issues, that does NOT consist of a single sovereign nation. It sets the stage for a US against the world bipolar power scheme, rather than a 'good against evil' that Bush is attempting to create.
" It needs to abandon that group, force it out of the country and form a new alliance with nations, rich or poor, that are willing to fully abandon despotism and embrace man’s rights."
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.
"The cops (UN) had long condemned Bush’s neighbor (Saddam) for heinous crimes against families (Kurds, Kuwait, etc...), even forbidding anyone to sell him goods. The cops also demanded that the neighbor turn in his weapons upon the severest penalties for failing to do so. That neighbor simply defied the cops and thumbed his nose at them, continuing to make even more weapons.
Then on September 11, 2001 Bush’s family was partially destroyed by people seemingly aligned with his evil neighbor. Bush also heard reports that his evil neighbor was developing weapons to destroy the rest of his family. Rather than act alone, Bush went to the cops to plead that they come into his neighborhood to help him remove the neighbor, or at least to enforce their law of disarmament. But the cops simply said “nah...” Indeed, some of the cops were even selling goods to the neighbor against their own laws."
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. Given that even the US agreed at one time that another resolution was needed after 1441 in order to invade, it is more like the person taking the law into their own hands because the cops were taking too long for their taste.
Anyway, I think we should stop the analogy thing; it's too easy to bend one to our own arguments. :)
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. 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.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, again. |
