03-10-2003, 02:03 PM
|
#42
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Spelca:
What I wanted to point out is that everyone (ahem [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is saying that Saddam will never disarm. Including representers of the US government that I have spoken to. So my question (if you've read my post) was what was the point of going to the UN if the US was planning to attack Iraq no matter what? You say you don't believe Saddam, but what if Saddam really would disarm, would you believe him then? Probably not, right. [img]smile.gif[/img] You'd say that he's still hiding some weapons somewhere. Soooo... if nobody is ever willing to believe Saddam, what exactly was the point of going through the UN? Can anybody answer me that? [img]smile.gif[/img] If the US had really wanted the oppinion of the UN and wanted to work through the UN, then okay. But right now it seems they'll go to war with the UN or without. So what was the real reason? [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
The point was, to play the political game. It was an attempt to allow the UN to possibly become an effective force for action instead of a counsel of appeasers and do nothings. It was an attempt to allow the UN some dignity of doing the right thing. It was an attempt to let some of europe show that it could effectivly fight terror and opressive regimes. What it showed was that the UN is useless and ineffective as an enforcement agency.
Err thats how I see it at least.
|
|
|
|