It seemed to me that given the history of Iraq/Kuwait and the area, including Israel's creation, a reconstructed NUN could set up a regional headquarters, funded by oil, to actually conquer Iraq and establish democratic rule in a federal way, along the lines of the way New Zealand is ruled by Queen Elizabeth II. She doesn't sit in Buckingham Palace telling us how to park our cars and demanding tithes, or fleecing our fleece. Especially not these days.
Why/How would the NUN be any more successful than the US?
Put 1 million troops in there.
OK, I guess you answered the last question. But its very unlikely to happen even if we had a remodeled more powerful UN.
That shouldn't even cost a lot as there are LOTS of Indians who could use the work. A railway line could be built from India to carry everyone.
A large fraction of a million soldiers coming from India through Pakistan and Iran to Iraq. Sounds like a politically complicated situation.
So, phone the White House and get them to start the NUN. It would have been better 4 years ago
I don't see how even if it had strong support from the US, that a totally remodeled and stronger UN would happen, except perhaps after decades of negotiations. The original UN was created after the biggest war in history, by the dominant victors. Without the shock of WWII, or the dominance of the victors of WWII it would be harder to establish a new organization or making massive sweeping changes in the existing UN.
As for Kuwait belonging to Iraq I can't agree. As for the right of conquest argument, well that tends to get looked on less favorably these days, but even if it is accepted, it only applies as long as you can actually control it, and Iraq currently isn't in control of Kuwait.
I don't see why the few bosses of Kuwait should keep the loot in Kuwait when it's really part of Iraq.
Because it isn't part of Iraq. |
