2005-05-04

Iraq, US, and the UN

I was just thinking.
I'm not saying for sure that US did disobey any UN rule, but suppose for a moment it did.
Whether or not you are for the war, most would agree that Iraq was disobeying some UN rule.
If that's why the US invaded Iraq, then by that logic what would say that it would be wrong for another UN member to invade the US?

Another sort of related thing:
Assume again that the US invading Iraq constituted a violation (namely Article 2 #4 w/o Articles 41/42). I'm not necessarily saying it did, but it sure looks like it.
ALSO assume that this whole thing really was to protect us from WMDs or whatever Saddam supposively had. In fact, you can even assume (incorrectly) that they really did have them.
Q: OK, so what's wrong with our invasion then?
A: We violated UN rules.
Q: Why should we let any of Fr, Rus, and/or China decide whether or not we can do what we need to protect ourselves?
A: Perhaps we shouldn't.
Q: Huh?
A: If we weren't in the UN, then we could do whatever we want, legally.
Q: So we should leave the UN?
A: If the US isn't willing to abide by UN rules and it can't get them legally changed, it shouldn't be a member. If we think it has too much power, then we should leave.
Q: What's wrong with the current set up? We do whatever we want anyway.
A: It's certianly not setting a good example. Iraq probably wasn't obeying the UN, but we aren't either.

So yeah, that's pretty much it. I think we should be in the UN, but not if we completely disregaurd it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home