Quote:
Originally posted by TerraMex
The real breach between the UN is devided in two main issues:
1) Are they going for the oil ? Most think so. And the US havent given any real effort to prove them wrong.
2) Going to war without an UN resoltution. There are proper channels. The US are a part of the UN, and they have signed an agreement on what those channels are. It a question of respect. And they again insulted the UN by calling them irrelevant. They're not a dog that you command at free will.
Besides, in the past, the US is the country that used the most the veto option in the securty council. It's the old "it's my way, or the highway". Now it backfired.
|
1) Most definitely, the US is "going after the oil", but that's not an entirely correct sentence. It should read: the US is out to stabilise the middle east, and as a result, the price of oil, not just for the US, but also for the whole world: we are all entitled to purchase oil on the world market, at a fair price, and without the side effect of creating a conflict within the middle east. That's the real issue here: Saddam is pocketing profits from the sale of oil, and letting his countrymen die of starvation, and his country's economy go down the drain.
Iraq could have done very well by using oil profits to educate every countrymen, and make Iraq the technological focus point of the world. That's what I would have done. But instead, when the oil runs out, Iraq will become a third world country, simply because its leaders didn't have the foresight to realize that the country depends on a single finite resource for an economy.
The UN isn't irrelevant, that's not what the US is "saying". Instead, the US is advancing that Iraq is a threat to its own security, as well as the rest of the world, and fully intends to declare war on Iraq, if the UN cannot "get it together" to realize the extent of the threat.
I think that what's most frustrating is that the US representatives have been presenting their case in such a way that it looks like they have a higher agenda, and that's what everyone else really wants to know: what are you really trying to do, and why?
The US would like nothing more than to force a democratic government upon Iraq, but I don't think that the UN has it as a purpose to do anything like that: if a country is a dictatorship, then it's a dictatorship, period. Cuba is still well represented.
There is some history behind this american purpose, where the US has made generous donations to various countries, with some reservations, in order to promote democracy.
So the UN is not going to allow the US to topple Iraq, because that's not what the UN is for. The US will have to declare war upon Iraq, and in order to do that, it MUST absolutely do so as part of a coalition, which now appears to include the UK, or at least have UK on its side.
President Bush must obtain permission from Congress, in order to declare war on another country. As it stands, Bush won't get it.
This is going to be a diplomatic effort that could very well take at least a year, but rest assured, the US troops will remain abroad, just to press the issue. It's the old: possesion is 9/10 of the law: we're here already, so why not just go?