In Reply to: Agreeing on almost everything posted by Thinker on March 27, 2003 at 10:56:55:
It's not so much disagree but that I'm torn between harsh realities. Yes, somebody needed to get rid of Saddam but how is the question. You said "it's good the U.S. is doing it" and I have trouble with that. I could agree if the U.S. was going in with the world behind them on this one.
On the other hand, what did the UN do to stop the massacre in Rwandi? Nothing. They sat around passing toothless resolutions and refusing to engage their UN troops there while a million men, women and children were massacred.
What did the UN do in East Timor? When the Muslims were about to massacre hundreds in a compound, the UN withdrew its troops out of harm's way so the men, women and children could be butchered. They were only spared because a few UN soldiers bucked their orders and stayed.
Did the U.S. bomb Belgrade with UN approval? As I recall, the UN sat around saying "oh my" when the poor Kosovo people were being murdered. The U.S. went in with NATO instead of waiting for the UN. They acted and saved Kosovo.
So yes, someone needed to do something, but you will recall that at the last moment the French said give 30 more days to disarm (with the carrot that they would then approve force afterwards) but the U.S. had lost patience at that point. Yet despite the French pride and intransigence, it would have been worth waiting in this case. Then the U.S. and Britain would have had the UN's approval and backing.
Isn't that important? Don't all the other nations of the world have a say in what happens in this world? In this case, the U.S. could and should have waited 30 more days .... then gone in.