Is UN to blame for war in Iraq?

common mancommon man
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I think so. If the UN (and the Clinton Administration) had had the spine to enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq after 1991, the situation would be very different today. Why was SH not held accountable for all those years? Even worse, the UN had a chance to redeem itself last year when the situation started to heat up. Had the UN supported an international strike on Iraq if SH refused to come clean and answer the unanswered questions about weapons, I believe that SH would have backed down. He never dreamed that the US would put together a "coalition of the willing" and take him out. A show of preventative muscle would have made a big difference.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 73
    piwozniakpiwozniak Posts: 815member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I think so. If the UN (and the Clinton Administration) had had the spine to enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq after 1991, the situation would be very different today. Why was SH not held accountable for all those years? Even worse, the UN had a chance to redeem itself last year when the situation started to heat up. Had the UN supported an international strike on Iraq if SH refused to come clean and answer the unanswered questions about weapons, I believe that SH would have backed down. He never dreamed that the US would put together a "coalition of the willing" and take him out. A show of preventative muscle would have made a big difference.



    I would also blame it on cyclists
  • Reply 2 of 73
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I think so. If the UN (and the Clinton Administration) had had the spine to enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq after 1991, the situation would be very different today. Why was SH not held accountable for all those years? Even worse, the UN had a chance to redeem itself last year when the situation started to heat up. Had the UN supported an international strike on Iraq if SH refused to come clean and answer the unanswered questions about weapons, I believe that SH would have backed down. He never dreamed that the US would put together a "coalition of the willing" and take him out. A show of preventative muscle would have made a big difference.



    I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with this statement here. Even the most ardent Bush supporters on AO are informed enough to realize that you have no idea what you are talking about.
  • Reply 3 of 73
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    I'm going to have to vote no here. Perhaps the UNs approach to dealing with Saddam was easy handed at best, but ultimately the reasons for war were either a) Saddam being a crazy dictator bent on death or b) the US bypassing the UN entirely and preemptively invading Iraq, depending on which line of thought you follow.



    It's hard to blame the war on the UN when you think about it. If he was truly nuts and ready to kill large amounts of people with WMD, there is little to nothing the UN could have done to stop him. And obviously the UN can't do much to stop the US from invading Iraq either, so they can't be blamed (or should I say be the most to blame) for something they are really powerless to influence on either side.
  • Reply 4 of 73
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Oh yes. Definitely Clinton's fault and the fault of the secret UN "world government", just ask any die-hard Republican. I mean without question, everything that has gone wrong with Iraq and the WOT since Bush has taken office, is Clinton's fault. Bush doesn't make bad decisions, nor does Chenney.
  • Reply 5 of 73
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    Had the UN supported an international strike on Iraq if SH refused to come clean and answer the unanswered questions about weapons, I believe that SH would have backed down.



    Thug to bystander: Help me intimidate this guy over there!

    Bystander: nope, I don't think that's the right thing to do.

    Thug: so you are responsible that I now have to beat him up.





  • Reply 6 of 73
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Absolutely it is partly the UN's fault, because they botched the Gulf War.
  • Reply 7 of 73
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Absolutely it is partly the UN's fault, because they botched the Gulf War.



    How do you come to that absurd conclusion?
  • Reply 8 of 73
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    I don't think this is such a crazy idea. Captured higher ups from the SH regime have said that SH never expected a US attack (sorry I don't have links for those statements now). I really think that he thought that he was buffered from being ousted by the French, German and Russian opposition. I do not think SH is a crazy man. I think he does what he needs to do so save his skin when he feels it is in danger. He did not go down on the battle field. He is a survivor and he follows the plan that best suits the mainatance of his life and power. I sincerely believe that he would have compromised if he feared an attack by a UN sanctioned force. He did not want to go down.
  • Reply 9 of 73
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member






    Absolutely pathetic.





    Hey CM! Where's the WOMD???????????????
  • Reply 10 of 73
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    A UN sanctioned attack didn't come because the UN actually did it's job (for once). The War was unlawful, and based on false claims. As we all know now.
  • Reply 11 of 73
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    SH had not lived up to the requirements of the treaty he signed in 1991! Perhaps he had no weapons, but he refused to provide the international community (I know the left loves that term) with the essential proof that he had no weapons. The UN had a resonsibility to the "international community" to demand that proof. The UN should have said "live up to your resonsibilities or we will assume that you have weapons and use force to disarm you". That would have been the UN "doing its job".



    An interesting commentary on the war



    http://www.chronicallybiased.com/ind...temid=348#more
  • Reply 12 of 73
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    SH had not lived up to the requirements of the treaty he signed in 1991! Perhaps he had no weapons, but he refused to provide the international community (I know the left loves that term) with the essential proof that he had no weapons. The UN had a resonsibility to the "international community" to demand that proof. The UN should have said "live up to your resonsibilities or we will assume that you have weapons and use force to disarm you". That would have been the UN "doing its job".



    An interesting commentary on the war



    http://www.chronicallybiased.com/ind...temid=348#more



    So why did the US not let Hans Blix finish his job?
  • Reply 13 of 73
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    SH had not lived up to the requirements of the treaty he signed in 1991! Perhaps he had no weapons, but he refused to provide the international community (I know the left loves that term) with the essential proof that he had no weapons. The UN had a resonsibility to the "international community" to demand that proof. The UN should have said "live up to your resonsibilities or we will assume that you have weapons and use force to disarm you". That would have been the UN "doing its job".



    An interesting commentary on the war



    http://www.chronicallybiased.com/ind...temid=348#more







    The inspectors there at the time said he had no WOMD. There was no way he could deploy them in any great number to us which was the tacit implication to start this war.



    And guess what? There was no WOMD when we got there and it was quite evident there hadn't been for some time.



    Please don't bring up the stray shell. That's to be expected and as the guys who found it said it wasn't even a good weapon.



    At the time the international community was satisfied there were no WOMD and so was the UN. So was I as were many people who protested against this war.



    Your arguments don't hold even a drop of water.



    The fact remains this war was fought for reasons other than advertised. I don't want someone who resorts to those kinds of tactics running our country period.
  • Reply 14 of 73
    common mancommon man Posts: 522member
    Hasn't Hans B admittd that whenever possible he gave SH the "benefit of the doubt"? The US was not satisfied with the weapons inspectors ability to do the job. I would rather not have my security in the hands of Hans, thank you. The US is far better off knowing what what is going on in Iraq, peroid. Any idea what gave Libia the idea to clean out its weapons programs? Could it have been fear? Another benefit of the war in Iraq.
  • Reply 15 of 73
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    Hasn't Hans B admittd that whenever possible he gave SH the "benefit of the doubt"?



    Not quite. His exact words were:



    "Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt; be presumed innocent."



    So what Blix actually said was that, until proof could be unearthed that WMD existed, the assumption that they did not had to be maintained.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    The US was not satisfied with the weapons inspectors ability to do the job.



    So? I don't recall his being an employee of the US government.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    I would rather not have my security in the hands of Hans, thank you. The US is far better off knowing what what is going on in Iraq, peroid. Any idea what gave Libia the idea to clean out its weapons programs? Could it have been fear? Another benefit of the war in Iraq.



    The only benefit of the war in Iraq is that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Terrorism still exists. The US is no more secure.
  • Reply 16 of 73
    not unlike myselfnot unlike myself Posts: 2,037member
    You know every time we all feel like some bloodshed we should all meet up at the UN and pick the countries who are to go at like prize fighters. Then we can locate some desolate province somewhere (mongolia?) where the two armies can meet and have it out. Winner takes all, the trophy, the money, the oil, the chicks, and the candy. The loser? They have to sit out of the fights for at least 6 months before they can have another go round. The remaining nations NOT involved in the fight can make bets on the winner. If they guess wrong, they have to take a 3 month time out from world war games, and if they guess right, the get a share of the spoils (but none of the candy). They could make it an ongoing Pay-Per-View event and sell tickets. Man, the money they raise from dedicated viewers would easily offset the overhead of managing the system.



    I love this idea, SANCTIONED WARS! (aka, warfare in a corporate world)
  • Reply 17 of 73
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Vote Bush/Cheney 2004: It's Not His Fault
  • Reply 18 of 73
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    You know every time we all feel like some bloodshed we should all meet up at the UN and pick the countries who are to go at like prize fighters. Then we can locate some desolate province somewhere (mongolia?) where the two armies can meet and have it out. Winner takes all, the trophy, the money, the oil, the chicks, and the candy. The loser? They have to sit out of the fights for at least 6 months before they can have another go round. The remaining nations NOT involved in the fight can make bets on the winner. If they guess wrong, they have to take a 3 month time out from world war games, and if they guess right, the get a share of the spoils (but none of the candy). They could make it an ongoing Pay-Per-View event and sell tickets. Man, the money they raise from dedicated viewers would easily offset the overhead of managing the system.



    I love this idea, SANCTIONED WARS! (aka, warfare in a corporate world)



    That could be a good video game
  • Reply 19 of 73
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Vote Bush/Cheney 2004: It's Not His Fault





  • Reply 20 of 73
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Common Man

    Hasn't Hans B admittd that whenever possible he gave SH the "benefit of the doubt"? The US was not satisfied with the weapons inspectors ability to do the job. I would rather not have my security in the hands of Hans, thank you. The US is far better off knowing what what is going on in Iraq, peroid. Any idea what gave Libia the idea to clean out its weapons programs? Could it have been fear? Another benefit of the war in Iraq.



    As you can see from the other replies here your arguments still don't hold water.
Sign In or Register to comment.