Can someone explain to me again how can US go behind UNs back to enforce UN resolution?

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: halik
something doesnt add up...
Even if iraq violates UN resolution, how can you go behind UNs back to punish someone for violation a UN resolution.

Isn't that sort of like me going off shooting some rapist while he was in court to get his sentance? I mean he was guilty after all.

Can someone explain to me again how can the UN members choose not to support UN resolutions?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: SlowSS
If over 50% of americans opposed the war, I don't think congress would authorize use of force against Iraq, which in turn will tie bush's hands.

the president doesn't need anything from the Congress to start a war and Congress already passed legislation in october approving use of force against iraq, so i don't know what you are referring to

this CBS News poll shows much greater than 50% support for War in Nov '02 , Jan '03 and Feb 7 '03 , so that whole line of thought is irrelavent , much more than 50% of americans understand the presidents reasons to attack Iraq and support a War at this time

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: SlowSS
If over 50% of americans opposed the war, I don't think congress would authorize use of force against Iraq, which in turn will tie bush's hands.

the president doesn't need anything from the Congress to start a war and Congress already passed legislation in october approving use of force against iraq, so i don't know what you are referring to

this CBS News poll shows much greater than 50% support for War in Nov '02 , Jan '03 and Feb 7 '03 , so that whole line of thought is irrelavent , much more than 50% of americans understand the presidents reasons to attack Iraq and support a War at this time

Yeah, I know that Presidents could go to war without the congress's approval, but it is just matter of protocal and Presidents usually like get the support of congress and public when going into a war.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: halik
something doesnt add up...
Even if iraq violates UN resolution, how can you go behind UNs back to punish someone for violation a UN resolution.

Isn't that sort of like me going off shooting some rapist while he was in court to get his sentance? I mean he was guilty after all.

Can someone explain to me again how can the UN members choose not to support UN resolutions?

Huh? You're probably talking about France and Germany and I think you're mistaking the option not to go to war at this time as not supporting UN resolutions. Is that right?

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: SlowSS

Originally posted by: halik
something doesnt add up...
Even if iraq violates UN resolution, how can you go behind UNs back to punish someone for violation a UN resolution.

Isn't that sort of like me going off shooting some rapist while he was in court to get his sentance? I mean he was guilty after all.

If UN did their job and punish those who violate UN resolution, we won't be a position that we are in now.

Yes. They should have nuked those damn Israelis for:
1. having WMDs
2. violating UN resolutions