Just because only 45 pledged military support doesn't mean that we didn't have another 100 or more backing resolutions for action. Remember, a majority doesn't necessarily matter because some UN members can veto anything for whatever reason they feel. Just like how in the states if a bill passes in both houses with 100% approval, the president can still veto part or all of the bill if he so pleases. That in mind, we stopped wasting our time in the UN and took action ouselves.
Actual numbers have probably not been released so squabling over this is pointless. The fact is that a significant number of UN members failed to notice the 12 years that passed without positive change and that future peacefull diplomatic change was highly unlikely. Either that or they had ulterior motives for delaying actions, extending inspection deadlines, and refusing to back future resolutions.
Why the hell are you blaming George W Bush for Turkey's military presence in the Kurdish area? Turkey is using our preoccupation with ousting Iraq's gov't to slip by us to increase their existing presence in the Kurdish area in the north of Iraq. Their perogative, however, is not to go at war with the Kurds, but to pressure the Kurds not to secede from Iraq or allow mass exodus to Turkey. An increased Kurdish population in Turkey or a Kurdish state will supposedly cause high tentions in the bordering regions. This was inevitable, as the Kurds would have likely wanted to secede even under a peaceful regime change.
So I take it you're against the war. You would rather we allowed Saddam's tyrant regime to stay in power and continue his atrocities than to sacrifice our soldiers for the well being of the Iraqis and the safety of neighboring countries. Allowing the UN weapons inspectors to inventory Iraq was never going to make Saddam have a sudden change of heart. You must admit that, or your just playing dumb.
Philip
------------------
Limecat is not pleased.
Actual numbers have probably not been released so squabling over this is pointless. The fact is that a significant number of UN members failed to notice the 12 years that passed without positive change and that future peacefull diplomatic change was highly unlikely. Either that or they had ulterior motives for delaying actions, extending inspection deadlines, and refusing to back future resolutions.
Why the hell are you blaming George W Bush for Turkey's military presence in the Kurdish area? Turkey is using our preoccupation with ousting Iraq's gov't to slip by us to increase their existing presence in the Kurdish area in the north of Iraq. Their perogative, however, is not to go at war with the Kurds, but to pressure the Kurds not to secede from Iraq or allow mass exodus to Turkey. An increased Kurdish population in Turkey or a Kurdish state will supposedly cause high tentions in the bordering regions. This was inevitable, as the Kurds would have likely wanted to secede even under a peaceful regime change.
So I take it you're against the war. You would rather we allowed Saddam's tyrant regime to stay in power and continue his atrocities than to sacrifice our soldiers for the well being of the Iraqis and the safety of neighboring countries. Allowing the UN weapons inspectors to inventory Iraq was never going to make Saddam have a sudden change of heart. You must admit that, or your just playing dumb.
Philip
------------------
Limecat is not pleased.
