Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Incorrect on many counts

Re: Incorrect on many counts
gbaikie — (archived)

"And, with the absolute lack of UN and NATO assistance and support, it is the case that they would be American troops... That is, unless we want to turn things over to the turks... (not advisable)"

Nonsense. First there isn't a "absolute lack of UN and NATO assistance and support". What you have in the security council is an effort to limit American Power- that's probably the most favorable way to spin this opposition. Other less favorable ways of looking at, includes a bias against your President, George Bush- he stepped on their toes when he made various decisions regarding treaties which he considered was in America's interest. And the parties in strong opposition have business contracts with Iraq which could be nullified if Saddam were to leave office. Other parties are standing on the fence, mainly because of their local politics. For example, the UK (which is a strong supporter) has opposition within the Labor Party (and that's Blair's base). The politically safe thing for Blair to do is not be so visibly supportive of the US position.
Once the US actually starts the war, the situation will change. This is one reason that some in the Bush adminstration didn't even want to go to the UN. Legally the US can attack Iraq, we didn't need to go to the UN. The main reason we went to the UN was because Blair needed us to do this. One danger of going to the UN will be that countries will be "stuck" in the position of being against this action and also if the UN does not do what it should do, then it's one more instance of the UN failing as a body in acting to maintain world peace and stability.
[The Rule of Law is not created by passing numerous laws but rather by enforcing laws which have been passed. Passing numerous laws which are ignored will evenually destroy the Rule of Law- at least in regards to that body passing the unenforced laws.]
Anyways despite any concievable damage caused by going to the UN, after Iraq's regime change, their will much more international support to put in a successful regime then what currently there is towards Afghanistan. Iraq is more "obviously" significant to more countries than Afghanistan. So there will be no shortage of "UN and NATO assistance and support"- "too much" might a problem:). And Afghanistan is quite aware of this difference and are taking steps to insure that at least the US doesn't forget them because of attention on the Iraq.
As far as the Turks, let's just say there are other muslim nations which are in the better position to lend assistance. Saudi Arabia would probably play a major role if up to the task. Egypt would undoubtively play a role. As would Jordan. Kuwait has slight problem of being attacked by Iraq, but this problem also means Kuwait has certain interests which are justifiable- and similar to this is Iran (more potential problems but also a lot of good is possible and they may use arguments Kuwait uses as reasons for their involvement). There are also a number of other muslim nations I'm not mentioning simply because I would need to explain the whys and therefores of their involvement (and there are simply so many).

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)