>>Sorry, I believe you are on very tenuous grounds here. The primary reason for the US attacking Iraq cannot be for failure to disarm through a certified UN method unless the US is acting on the part of the UN.<<
False. The circumstance here is just a bit more complex than you are trying to make it. The U.N. was supposed to act on behalf of the U.S. and failed to do so. That is why the U.S. acted alone. The point of certified disarmament was to give assurance to the world, including the U.S., that Iraq did not have WMDs. The U.N. failed to provide that assurance. 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 other words, the US cannot on the one hand claim that we are invading Iraq for breaking a UN resolution, and then on the other hand attack unilaterally without the UN.<<
It most certainly can simply because the U.S. is part of the U.N. and its interests were supposedly supported by the U.N. When the U.S. confirmed that its interests were not terribly important to the U.N. (especially with France and other U.N. players literally equipping Iraq against U.N. sanctions), it acted to defend its interests alone.
>>Let's speculate that Iraq disarmed, but being the losers they are, still wanted to string people along. That would mean that we invaded them not because they had WMD, but because they won't destroy them in front of our eyes. A VERY flimsy reason for invasion, in the eyes of the world.<<
Perhaps, but the world itself declared in several resolutions that upon severe consequences Iraq had to disarm before our eyes. In view of 911 and the WMD reports, the U.S. had to make sure that those resolutions were fulfilled, whether the world thought it flimsy or not.
Had Bush languished in the White House with those WMD reports and with Iraq’s recalcitrance, and had America been nuked or otherwise attacked by Iraq, Bush would have been terribly irresponsible. (C'mon maan. Really now. Be reasonable and honest. In this case you would have been all over the guy!) Bush took the best and safest route for the protection of his country (since Saddam refused to prove he had disarmed). 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. You may second guess him as you will, but it was the prudent thing to do. Regardless of whether the WMD’s existed or not, you are alive under Bush’s leadership and would be dead under your own.
>>That is why finding the WMD is so important; because the reason for invading cannot be to enforce the principle of inspection without UN sanction.<<
Hopefully by now you see how ridiculous this is. We do not need to justify our actions after the fact. The facts, such as they were prior to the attack, are justification enough.
>>Where we disagree the most is in the role of the UN. If not the UN as it stands, there MUST be an international body of justice. With the world shifting from bipolar to monopolar, there MUST be checks and balances to the power of the US.<<
Apparently like Bush, I have little faith in the U.N. except as a body to hand out powdered milk to starving Africans and Cambodians. France was cheating against us even as it was grandstanding in the U.N.
>>If your argument is that the UN as it stands today is not that body, then I cannot argue too much with that. We need to figure out some method for dealing with international security issues, without having to build a new coalition each time such a crisis arises.<<
The problem is, so many nations in the U.N. are given respect and power when they have not earned it. Libya simply has no place in U.N. leadership. Many of these nations are not democracies, do not recognize and respect the innate rights of man and indeed are hostile to any such notion. Yet, these nations aim via the U.N. to have substantial influence over U.S. policy. America is fundamentally at odds with many of the powers at the U.N. 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, the man that shoots his neighbor who he thinks is posing a threat, but turns out not to have a gun, will still go to jail.<<
Not if that neighbor is a known murderer of entire families and has a state sanctioned condemnation on his head. That is essentially the circumstance we had with Saddam Hussein. The circumstance was even worse in the case with Bush and Saddam. You are presupposing a state with integrity. That certainly was not the case with the U.N. Bush’s case was something like this:
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.
What we see here in this case is a failure of the authorities to maintain justice, clearly drawing a line and yet clearly being unwilling to take action once that line was crossed. We see corruption. To protect his family, Bush had no choice but to destroy his neighbor and then take his lumps as they came. At least the rest of his family would be alive. Bush had no real choice.
>>You need that threat to be proven in order to get off.<<
We do not need anything. We only need proof of the threat were we to have a legitimate authority. The system had unquestionably broken down the very minute the UN decided to ignore its own demands. The worthiness of the authorities had completely dissipated and since they would not act to preserve Bush’s family, Bush did the only rational thing and acted himself. Now he is being cursed for it, but at least his people are alive, the neighbor is gone and Bush knows for certain no WMDs will harm his family from that neighbor. If the authorities wish to do something about it, then let them try. They should have acted earlier against the guy they had already agreed was a threat to the community.
You simply have too high a regard for the U.N., a regard that is completely without warrant. Libya is a U.N. leader. That ought to tell you something about the U. Friggin’ N. |
