How can the countries on the security council, from whom the US was requesting support, and who refused to give it on America's timetable, not be involved?
The WERE involved in passing a 2nd resolution (which they decided not to). They didn't participate in the action (the war), so really have little say in the matter.
Inspections kept this tin horn dictator in check for 12 years and would have for 12 more.
Wrong, the inspectors were kicked out in 1998, and only allowed back in when the coalition put an army on the borders. From 1998 to 2002 the UN didn't do squat regarding Iraq and WMDs.
France is not stuck in a costly quagmire in Iraq. The US on the other hand is. Do you want to reconsider the "france screwed it up" (your)depiction of the "US view"?
The UN opposed Saddam's governance for 12 years, so the US prepares to remove him with UN support, and the UN doesn't give it. I consider that a major screw up of the UN, and the leaders of the "don't give support" campaign were France.
You've gotta understand two things.
1- Keeping the US military indefinitely in the Middle East to enforce a UN resolution is impractical. A UN-led and UN-paid for military, maybe, but still pretty impractical.
2- If the UN is going to pass resolutions like 1441 which imply serious consequences, they should act on their word. Hans concluded that he could not say Saddam has complied, so the UN should been UNITED in enforcing their resolution, and celebrated the removal of one of the worst dictators on the planet. The failure to do so is, in my opinion, a failure of the UN, and is one of the causes of the current quagmire in Iraq. |
