Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

mml · 09-16-2004, 09:02 AM

Regardless of what Americans would like or think should be, the UN represents the interests of ALL of its members. The reality is that the vast majority of the world's population is opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. Annan has every right to his opinion, and in fact, his opinion is in the majority. In a truly global society, there must be some forum for international communication and agreement. While it is certainly not perfect, the U.N. is what we have and to make statements like "Let's get the hell out!" shows a rather simplistic or isolationist view to international politics, economics and security.

If we all take a deep breath and look at the facts, the US did act without final approval of the UNSC. Does that really matter to the US? Not particularly, except that one of the reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the war is that Saddam was in violation of UN RESOLUTIONS, ergo it would, according to international law, require authorization of the UNSC for this to be a "legal" action.

Now, the Bush Administration believes that the last UNSC Resolution (sorry, I can't remember the number right now) gave them the right to take action, most of the UNSC and the UN members disagree. So, in an attempt to keep with the topic, I think that Mr. Annan was right and just in his interpretation of this matter (regardless of what I think of the UN and his stewardship of the organization). I my opinion, the US under the leadership of President Bush and under the sway of the idealistic and simplistic guidance of the Neo-Conservative movement, rushed in to a war that was unjustified and poorly timed, planned and executed. Did Saddam need to go? Of course, but the US should have completed it's mission in Afganistan (which had UNSC support) while continuing to build their case against Saddam. If a more agressive diplomacy was used (much like what George H. W. Bush used to build a coalition) we most likely could have accomplished the same thing (albeit in a delayed time frame) while maintaining or even improving US stature and relations in the world. (But perhaps this is me being idealistic and simplistic - but I guess we will never know)

09-16-2004, 09:02 AM	#47 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Regardless of what Americans would like or think should be, the UN represents the interests of ALL of its members. The reality is that the vast majority of the world's population is opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. Annan has every right to his opinion, and in fact, his opinion is in the majority. In a truly global society, there must be some forum for international communication and agreement. While it is certainly not perfect, the U.N. is what we have and to make statements like "Let's get the hell out!" shows a rather simplistic or isolationist view to international politics, economics and security. If we all take a deep breath and look at the facts, the US did act without final approval of the UNSC. Does that really matter to the US? Not particularly, except that one of the reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the war is that Saddam was in violation of UN RESOLUTIONS, ergo it would, according to international law, require authorization of the UNSC for this to be a "legal" action. Now, the Bush Administration believes that the last UNSC Resolution (sorry, I can't remember the number right now) gave them the right to take action, most of the UNSC and the UN members disagree. So, in an attempt to keep with the topic, I think that Mr. Annan was right and just in his interpretation of this matter (regardless of what I think of the UN and his stewardship of the organization). I my opinion, the US under the leadership of President Bush and under the sway of the idealistic and simplistic guidance of the Neo-Conservative movement, rushed in to a war that was unjustified and poorly timed, planned and executed. Did Saddam need to go? Of course, but the US should have completed it's mission in Afganistan (which had UNSC support) while continuing to build their case against Saddam. If a more agressive diplomacy was used (much like what George H. W. Bush used to build a coalition) we most likely could have accomplished the same thing (albeit in a delayed time frame) while maintaining or even improving US stature and relations in the world. (But perhaps this is me being idealistic and simplistic - but I guess we will never know)