Quote:
Originally posted by directfiesta
UN resolution ... but why:
- Is it the US that started the war, not the UN?
- the US decided against going back to the UN to get a formal endorsment?
You can spin it as much as you want, there wre no WMD, so the war was "sold" on false pretenses and false documents.
|
Why not the UN...because the UN is a weak debating Society and has acted only in the case of Korea and that was only because the Soviet delegate fucked up and was not present for the vote...or they would not have acted then.
The US and Great Britain being members of the Security Counsel decided not to wait another 12 years for the UN to debate some more. It was they that had the expense for 11 years containing Saddam. Saddam made Iraq a target.
I have always stated that...in my opinion...WMD's were not on the short list for the Invasion of Iraq...but that does not mean that there were any "false pretenses". You...nor I...nor the media...have access to the documents in the 14 intel agencies that pertain to Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Select Committee has been investigating for the past several months...and are still investigating the intel that was provided to the President. When their investigation is completed there will be a report as to...the Administrations exaggeration/lies or an intel failure.
Do not forget another thing. The UN imposed sanctions against Iraq...and by some accounts (which I do not entirely accept as being accurate)...there was a loss of several hundred thousand to in the millions of Iraqi' lives because of the sanctions.
Because of the US actions and asking the UN...these sanctions have been reluctantly lifted by the UN. Is it that you and those like you would have preferred the sanctions remain in place for another 11-12 years while the great debating society...the UN...debated the Iraq "problem"?