Is the US asking the UN for approval to attack Iraq, or for a coalition?

Remove all ads!

Is the US asking for approval for and attack on Iraq, or are we simply asking for a coalition so as to show a united world front, and to make sure we are not seen as being expansionist?

It has already been determined that the US does not need UN approval to attack Iraq. This is addressed in another thread, but just to recap: the US is the only gov't in the history of the UN to ask for and receive permission for such actions, and in the past Germany, France, Russia and China have all engaged in attacks on other sovereign nations without UN consent. This and the fact that the UN will take no action against the US pretty much makes approval from the UN optional.

Unless Saddam makes a miraculous change in his behavior, or someone in Iraq assassinates him and his son, the US is going to attack Iraq, even if we have to do it completely alone. The UN will bluster and condemn, but they will not do anything else. So why is America still trying? We know that France will veto any resolution that leads to an attack of their new ally.

The only thing that I can think is that the US gov't is trying to show once and for all how broken the UN security council is, and that we are doing or best to show that we truly have no interest in making Iraq our puppet. If the UN sanctions and oversees the attack, they will also get to oversee the installation of a new Iraqi gov't (though they will still try to oversee it even if the US goes it alone).

I would be interested to see other opinions as to why the US is still fooling around with the UN.

 

Yeah, I would like to know that too

What are you waiting for???

 

The UN didnt exist when Germany invaded Europe, China took Tibet as they thought it was theirs and they never bothered much about what others thought and was rightfully condemned for it. The Soviets invaded Afganistan but that wasnt very different from the Vietnam war, not nice at all though. No other countries have fought much lately, the only reason why you have only seen the US asking for permission is that they are the only ones that wants to go abroad and start wars nowadays.

 

Since the american government claims that it is going to attack Iraq because Saddam violates UN resolutions, then you need the permission of UN.

As far as I know Germany has not attacked another nation since WWII. If you mean WWII, UN was founded after the war. As far as for the others countries you mention can you give the specific cases?

The Iraqi National Congress is financed by U.S.A. Do you truly believe that it is not going to be a puppet goverment? Also, U.S. goverment has invited for five american construction combanies to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after the war. How can this happen since Iraq has not yet a new regime, which is going to decide who is going to rebuild the country? By the way, Dick Cheney run one of these companies until 2000. Just coincidence?

 

Well, the german constitution forbids Germany to participate in a war, except in the case of self-defence.

So, Germany hasn`t been involved in a war since 1945.

On the other Hand, that's just one of the reasons, why the USA need's the UN-approval for war.

Germany is technically, because of the constitution, not allowed, to support the US in an aggressive war, which the war against Irak would be without UN-approval.
But US-Bases in Germany and the German air-space are critical for the US in the planned war against irak.

So, there are a lot of legal problems for the US and the European countries, because Germany is not the only country with rules against aggressive wars, if the US would start the war without the UN-approval.

And don't forget, the 3 Reich startet WW2 with the claim, it would only be "DEFENDING ITSELF".

K, I wouldn't compare the Bush Jr-Administration to that german Administration. But George Bush Jr. really reminds of Kaiser Wilhelm 2. So much Power and so stupid.

 

The U.S. wants to maintain a veneer of respect for international law, but in the end, like every other country, they are going to do what they can get away with. That doesn't make them evil, it just makes them like every other nation.

As for the U.S. being the only country that wants to make war, I think you'd better look at your maps and history again. Africa is in a constant state of conflict, as is South America (the US didn't start THAT one!). God only knows what goes on behind the bamboo curtain, though I've heard rumors that the Chinese military is always involved in a conflict somewhere. India and Pakistan have been at war over the Kashmir for who knows how long.

The US is war hungry, that's obvious, but they are certainly not the only ones in the midst of a bunch of peace loving innocents.

 

BOC,

That is not how I understand it. The US is going to attack Iraq to disarm it. The fact that Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions is just evidence of that.

Also, If the UN would do what the US feels is its duty, then the government would not be set up by the US, and the UN could make sure that there representation other than the "Iraqi National Congress"

Depaara,

I do not believe that America is "war hungry". I can tell you that the majority of the people I know certainly are not, and the polls show that the majority of Americans are not.

The government might be, but I really doubt it. If they were, we would have attacked Iraq months ago. The longer this drags on, the worse the controlling party of the US government looks.

 

Touche, Darkwolf, touche. On the International stage they appear to be, as they are the ones pressing hardest for war. "They" being the Bush Administration. Thank you for helping to make that clear.

 

Darkwolf

Since the UN is the organization, which decided that Iraq must be disarmed, then UN is the only one who has the right to decide how this disarmament will take place.

As for the puppet goverment issue, the fact that the american goverment decides who will rebuild Iraq after the war (while it does not have the right to take decisions in the name of iraqi people) shows that US goverment knows that the future iraqi goverment will accept the terms of the contracts, regardless which these terms are.

 

Not true!

Take, for instance, a case where a man savagely rapes and murders several women. Both the public and the government will conclude that this man deserves the death penalty for the degree of the evil involved and the fact he will do it again.

If the government fails to do anything - just throws up in arms and gives up.... does not mean that the public does not have a higher duty towards justice and prevention?

Just because the U.N. is weak and able to enforce is own edicts, does not mean that a nation that distains villianry cannot act. Justice, equality, freedom and liberty supercede any assembly of cowardly politicians and ambassadors.

The U.S. must be strong for the U.N. and the world.

 

If the goverment can not convict the man of his crimes he is innocent and has not convicted the crimes. That is how justice has to work. It is a base of all law and justice. Innocent until proven guilty, if a court of law finds the man innocent of those crimes he is innocent even if it was a technicality that allowed him to go free. If it wasnt like that it isnt justice and law but rule by the common whim.
I have said it before and I will say it again, you can not use metaphors using individuals in the place of nations, individuals are ruled by laws and what is right and wrong set there for the common good.

There are really no such rules for nations and states. How harsh it may be but what one sovereign nation do to its people is none of our buisness really except that we can express our disgust and try to help the victims as best as we can and work diplomatically and aid wise to help. War is never ever the answer. Did your mother never tell you that violence feeds violence? That is always true, no matter what. You can not fight fire with fire.

 

Actually, you can. Maybe you should brush up on firefighting. Fighting fire with fire is called using backfires (wait -- do I have that term right? not sure...), and the strategy is used for many wildfires.

Violence can stop violence. That's what the whole concept of punishment is about.

Frankly, we could use a coalition military to keep the Arab world off our backs. Unfortunately, even that isn't going to help much, as the Arabs doubtless will still blame us; 75% of the Arab population at large would oppose an invasion of Iraq even if sanctioned and led by the UN. Primarily this is because they would view it as having been strongarmed by American leadership.

I don't think there's much purpose in "demonstrating" the UN Security Council's ineffectiveness.

Incidentally, I think we've done quite well for the most part at establishing new governments for countries. The Philippines are a prime example of this. Surely you don't say they are merely a puppet government?

 

Americans have the exact opposite opinion. If you can stop an evil act, then you are honor-bound to do so. Many of the States in the Union have laws concerning "depraved indifference". Lets say a man, for instance, sees another lying on the road dying (lets say he had a heart attack). If the first man does nothing, does not care, and the second man dies, then he is guilty of a crime.

Being indifferent towards evil is to be its ally.

In a perfect world, you are right. Amongst democracies, you are right. In the real world, you are wrong.

Acting out of hate or emotion is wrong. Emotion is the bane of thought. My mother taught me well. But we must not follow the naive philosophy of "violence feeds violence".

If a person is constantly being attacked by another, and does not fight back - he will be attacked again. If you do not fight for yourself -you will be enslaved! You must remember that humanity is diverse and what drives people varies greatly. Nations that do not oppose tyrrany and are afraid to fight - will be attacked. This is why France was conquered in World War 2. They were naive, they expected diplomacy to win. They were wrong.

 

This is off-topic but I'd like to know what you are talking about? Are you referring to the post WWII period or the post-Marcos era? Either way, it's not true. We can discuss this in another thread or privately.

 

What *are* you talking about Blackhawk? There are no such things as honour or glory. Empty concepts that only leads to death and suffering. Just using those concept speaks of an immense amount of ignorance and naivité. We life in a pragmatic world, which incidently isnt one of the states in the US yet, if you did not know that.
Violence may sadly be needed if you for some reason are under savage attack and needs to save your life, but as none of the countries that involved in the current crisis are under savage attack I dont see how violence can be the way to go. It will work brilliantly if you want to turn a large chunk of the world against you and perhaps really be under savage attack sometime in the future but that is all it can really lead to.
In case you did not know it so are violent punishments illegal in nearly all developed nations, incarceration is what is used. Furthermore, so has study after study shown that punishment is really ineffective in deterring people from crime, the only connection between punishment and crime rate is that the harsher the punishments are the higher the crime rate tend to go.

If you can't see that violence feeds violence I wonder where you have been, look at Isreal, at Northern Ireland, at Tjetjenien, at Rwanda, at Spain, at Colombia the list can go on. Vicious circles of vengeance is what violence leads to.

 

I might not believe in glory, but I do believe in honour. but not in mindless honour, for "Honour" is something that deservess a topic of its on, yes?

(Elves... *shakes her head* IMpossible, all of them!)

 

Erm, Capstone, humans are somewhat complexer than fires.

Yes it is, it is the "eternal" struggle of the strong against the weak, strong lives, weak dies. Thats how "we" "improve" "humanity"

What crime??
Not caring? Then we can all punish ourselves since the third-world is not a fairy tale.

Hate and love separate us from the animals, you seem to have a dislike for humans, or at least a part of us

Proof me the existance of evil

People will never totally agree with each other, especially not in a democracy.

 

Morgoth:

Joacqin stated here:

My first paragraph was a purely literal response, so the relative complexity of humans over fires is irrelevant.

And to pick at another issue:

Prove to me the existence of yourself and maybe we can start from there. But really, why should we go that far? I could simply deny that logic exists and avoid an argument altogether.

 

Ah...now youre claiming I am denying the existance of evil.

Lets say, evil exist, in what form, what actions have followed its path?

 

@ Blackhawk: If the UNO is weak, then why havn't the US tried to change this in the past?

Right: Because all of the US-administrations did consider the Organisation as a political instrument. And if it's not usable anymore or is getting uncomfortable, they drop it.

I'm not saying that it's all the fault of the USA. The other member states are partly guilty as well. But complaining over the weakness of a institution but not trying to change it is bigotry in my eyes.