E U voted today

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Ossie
Forgive me for getting lost in all of the technical terminology, but what exactly would a UN mandate to remove Saddam entail? What does that allow/disallow, and how is the goal of the mandate reached/enforced?

it is a document all the nations with their hands in their pockets get together and sign, hand to the US and her allies and say you have "our permission" now ....

[Dowding]

Hortlund, I suggest you chill. You're going to do yourself an injury.

Try harder Beetle.

Last time I checked, none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. The link between Iraq and Al Queda is tenuous at best and revolves around camps in the north of the country, the very same type of camps that reside in Saudi and several other 'friends'. Also, the IRA had cells operating in the US, but no one would suggest there were links between official government and them. MI6 said there was a fledgling relationship, but it floundered because of acute ideological differences.

In terms of international relations, war is generally viewed as just when the nation instigating the conflict has been attacked - i.e. a war in self-defence. Iraq has not attacked the US. It has engaged USAF/RAF fighters over the no-fly-zones, but these are NOT UN mandated and never have been. Hence, quite frankly, they can engage whoever they like over their air space.

A UN mandate keeps dialogue between certain 'problem' states open and free-flowing. It also gives them the idea that they are not side-lined on this issue. Bush Snr and Baker spent a huge amount of effort keeping a coalition together regarding the last Gulf war - the result was a successful outcome. A cowed and much weaker Iraq which had 95% of it's WMD destroyed and it's armed forces in ruins. It's called diplomacy.

Iraq is not Afghanistan. The evidence is not as forthcoming or as clear-cut. To me that speaks volumes.

If the major players within the UN cannot commit themselves to non-aggressive conflict, then why should any other State? How can the West dictate how 'things should be done' with this precedence in place? I don't think it can.

I'm not so sure France won't back down in the end. There's too much for it to lose. I believe there will be more evidence discussed at the UN soon.

[-tronski-]

I'm coming round to Rude's point of view. Let the US go into Iraq, with or without UN blessing. I'm coming round to the view "What's the UN got to do with it anyway?" So Dowding, remind us WHY we need to await UN approval. I'm afraid I've forgotten/lost the plot... It was the US that was targeted by the 911 attacks, and they (Dubya) warned that the war on terror would extend beyond Afghanistan/Taleban/OBL - to other belligerent countries that may sponsor terrorism against the US. And Iraq is one.

IF the US 'coalition' invades Iraq without UN approval then it makes a mockery of the whole reason(s) the US has for being there in the first place.  That whole heartedly disreguard of international law would only rubber stamp such acts as Saddams invasion of Kuwait as a legitimate action.

As for the terrorism link Dowding said it best:

Last time I checked, none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. The link between Iraq and Al Queda is tenuous at best and revolves around camps in the north of the country, the very same type of camps that reside in Saudi and several other 'friends'. Also, the IRA had cells operating in the US, but no one would suggest there were links between official government and them.

 Tronsky

[StSanta]

You need UN approval so you can claim to be enforcing international law.

Without it, you're breaking it. Of course since the US is the only superpower, people wouldn't call it breaking international law. Politicians wouldn't, I mean - those allied with the US.

The USA can basically do whatever it wants at the moment. It's like being the biggest baddest kid on the playground - one can use or abuse the authority. Up to the Yanks to decide which.

I see the UN as a way of attempting to listen to all parties involved and where possible reaching a compromise peaceful solution. Nothing forces the US to participate in this. But if it wants to act on behalf of 'the world',  it has to go through the UN. The alternative is acting upon the behalf of own interests, and those of allied nations.

Since WWII we've tried to solve problems through diplomacy and through talking to each other. We NEED a place to talk about things. It's good we have one, even though we might disagree.

The US might end up doing its thing. Still, I think the UN is valuable partly because of its peace keepers, but more importantly as a formally recognized *forum*. If the US has taken its discussion there but fail to get enough support, of course it can still act if it believes it is in its interests - no one is gonna impose sanctions on the superpower.

Basically,the US is so far ahead of any competitor when it comes to conventional forces that it's almost ridiculous. None can come close to it. Not even countries with massive populations like China. I think the power difference between competitors has never been as great as it is today ever in the history of mankind.