Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's the whole point - Hussein, just to save face allowed his country to be invaded - this ultimetly led to his demise - all becuase of his own stupidity.Not to mention it really does not matter whether there was WMD or not in Iraq......it was believed that there was a very strong chance there was. Saddam refused to allow full excess to UN inspectors.....leading the world to believe there very likely was WMD or why not let the inspectators in.
Saddam has to hold a great deal of responsibleity for the invasion, you can't just blame USA for being wrong Kris.
The media does not report on these events because it goes against there agenda.
IT DOESN'T GET MUCH CLEARER THAN THAT!Civettone - I beg you to consider this. Many personnel can't discuss many very important things that happened in Iraq. The press is also not privy to this information. It isn't reported. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are some instances of media reporting NBC weapons, but it is for the most part severely under-reported.
You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war - that's a valid argument. Many Americans would agree with you. Here's something to consider about the UN. The United Nations is an organization comprised of many different nation-states, which all have divergent interests. If the UN takes a course of action that a member state believes is very detrimental to it's own future - why is it illegitimate to act in defiance of that organization?
Many Americans do not give a damn about the UN. It's comprised of states, all attempting to to what's best for their own self-interests, which is how the world has always worked. Except now, the UN has this stamp of legitimacy placed upon it, as if it has some sort of actual power in being. Americans won't give up one bit of their sovereignty to a multi-national body that does not care one bit about American interests. Furthermore, the UN can be used as a weapon against the US by other member states that oppose US interests. The French didn't oppose our war in Iraq on the grounds that the UN didn't give it their stamp of approval, they opposed it because our actions in Iraq were detrimental to their national interests. No nation-state is altruistic. None at all.
The whole concept of the UN, as it applies to int'l relations, is flawed. It disregards reality. That defunct organization is likely to go the way of the League anyway.
mkloby,
I like your post first off. I do have a question for you, we both agree UN as it stands sucks. But do we (world) not need some organization to try and keep peace? Without it, it would lead to "might = right".
Then respectfully I am sure you could understand most of the worlds unhappyness with USA ruling the roast without anyone to answer to.
Even I who am a Canadian and who likes the USA would be not thrilled about that idea. Should there not always be "some" check stops in place vs aggressive nations or nations who hold vastly more power than others.
This organization you speak of is manipulated by member states to support national agendas. That's not exactly multi-national. The only time it acts as a true mutli-national organization is when many member states all have convergent interests.
The USA is the most powerful nation, yet we are not omnipotent. The same constraints that have always affected int'l relations still affect the US, and still would with or without the UN. Many of the nation-states that oppose the US through the channels of the UN are playing a new version of an OLD, OLD record - BALANCE OF POWER. If the US is bent on a course of action that it perceives to be in her interest, if the forces arrayed (not necessarily military forces) against the US are compelling enough to make US leaders believe that pursuit of that policy will no longer be in their best interests, the US will change their policy. This holds true with or w/o the UN.
This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?
The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive. Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests. Please explain to me how this is different from how the world has functioned for thousands of years?
yes but Hunter here is the issue of concern, do you feel safer with the UN in it's present form ? Will or can it even get any better with a strong and level headed leadership base ? ......... I know that is what you are asking .......
I'm so stinking tainted with my former past with these folk that nothing of good comes to my mind
I will play devils advocate before Kris does. Why is it not on their agenda to report the truth?
Not all media outlets are leftwing.
Bad news is good news...
So I suppose the 2 SEALs and 3 Special Forces fellas that Ive known for the last 15 years, and have seen WMDs in 2003 and 2004, are liars huh???Civettone said:- Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.