Geez, you are full of questions!
Do you understand this well enough to make such remarks?
Sure.
Was the 1991 gulf war a subjugation of American interests?
No
Did the alliance, when managed properly, not work well then?
Uhmmm, no, the alliance did not not work well, rather it did work well. Whew, I got the trick question!
Do we not know now that Saddam had indeed been disarmed by the UN effort?
We do know now that the dictator did not have stockpiles of chemical weapons. I think that's your question.
Are these not important representations of the cooperation among nations that an increasingly interconnected world needs to remain peaceful?
Not sure what you are refering to as "these".
You neglect to mention that the UN failed to remove the threat posed by Saddam. As long as he was around and in power, he was a potential danger to the world. At some point the decision was made that rather than punish the 20 million Iraqi people with sanctions for another 1 or 2 or 3 DECADES, it was preferable to remove his regime by force. And at this point in the process, THE UN COMPLETELY FAILED TO EXECUTE.
Thank you, France, for that contribution to world security....
It's easy to destroy something, as we have learned in the last 4 years. It's more corageous and mature to build ...
It's more courageous to do both, destroy evil and build something good. The UN didn't want to participate in the destruction of Saddam. Fine. War is not an acceptable means to an end for some countries.
How do you explain the UN's absence in the "courageous" building process that has going on for the past year and is going on today in Iraq???
Elroy |
