Were they opposed when the United States retaliated? I really don't see the difference between then and now, the US is still dealing with enemies who have openly defied and attacked the country. I'm just really puzzled at the UNs position over the last few months.
What was the UNs response/stance after the WTC attack?
- Thread starter Arkitech
- Start date
First of all it wasn't retaliation. The US doesen't engage in retaliation. It was a legitimate act of self defense after the gravest of provocations. The UN passed resolutions supporting us, and member states went into an unprecedented coordinated law enforcement, military, and intelligence operation to hunt down Al Qaeda.
They tried to get under the UN banner along with West African nations, but the US opposed it. The US felt that French troops were sufficient. The US generally opposes multilateral action under the UN these days unless it is in Iraq.
From the BBC
The UN security council also condemmned the rebels and praised France for sending peacekeeping troops into the region and trying to broker a cease fire. US continues to block a UN force in the country.
From the BBC
I don't have any links to point you too, its just something I remember hearing in the news awhile agoJust one incident. Saddam arranged to have a past president of the United States assasinated.
Luckily the plan did not suceed but that in and of itself could be construed as an act of war.
CLINTON SAYS U.S. ATTACK CRIPPLED IRAQI INTELLIGENCE
(06/28/93)
Washington -- The weekend U.S. cruise missile attack on the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad "did in fact cripple the Iraqi intelligence capacity," President Clinton told his Cabinet June 28.
Clinton ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" that Iraq masterminded an attempt to assassinate former President Bush during Bush's April 15-16 visit to Kuwait. Saddam Hussein had vowed in public to hunt down Bush and "punish" him for rallying a world coalition to thwart Baghdad's attempted annexation of Kuwait.
Choosing a time when few people would be in the intelligence compound in Baghdad, Clinton directed U.S. Navy ships to fire 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the target, said to be the nerve center for Saddam Hussein's terrorist attacks on other nations; three of the missiles were off-target, hitting a residential area, and four others hit the compound but not the intended buildings. U.S. officials said at the time of the raid that Clinton had ordered a 24-hour delay to avoid launching missiles on the Islamic Sabbath.
The president acted after receiving the fruits of a two-month investigation of the Iraqi plot, which was foiled when Kuwaiti authorities arrested 16 persons -- including two Iraqi nationals -- on April 14. U.S. authorities identified the Iraqi origin of components in a sophisticated explosive package -- 80 kilograms of explosives skillfully hidden in a Toyota 1andcruiser. The investigation revealed Iraqi plans to detonate the car bomb while Bush and the emir of Kuwait were at the University of Kuwait for an outdoor ceremony. The car bomb had a killing radius of 360 meters, officials said.
..."
(06/28/93)
Washington -- The weekend U.S. cruise missile attack on the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad "did in fact cripple the Iraqi intelligence capacity," President Clinton told his Cabinet June 28.
Clinton ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" that Iraq masterminded an attempt to assassinate former President Bush during Bush's April 15-16 visit to Kuwait. Saddam Hussein had vowed in public to hunt down Bush and "punish" him for rallying a world coalition to thwart Baghdad's attempted annexation of Kuwait.
Choosing a time when few people would be in the intelligence compound in Baghdad, Clinton directed U.S. Navy ships to fire 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the target, said to be the nerve center for Saddam Hussein's terrorist attacks on other nations; three of the missiles were off-target, hitting a residential area, and four others hit the compound but not the intended buildings. U.S. officials said at the time of the raid that Clinton had ordered a 24-hour delay to avoid launching missiles on the Islamic Sabbath.
The president acted after receiving the fruits of a two-month investigation of the Iraqi plot, which was foiled when Kuwaiti authorities arrested 16 persons -- including two Iraqi nationals -- on April 14. U.S. authorities identified the Iraqi origin of components in a sophisticated explosive package -- 80 kilograms of explosives skillfully hidden in a Toyota 1andcruiser. The investigation revealed Iraqi plans to detonate the car bomb while Bush and the emir of Kuwait were at the University of Kuwait for an outdoor ceremony. The car bomb had a killing radius of 360 meters, officials said.
..."
need proof that Iraqs a threat to the U.S
they have modified missles that reach almost 100 miles....thats helluva hard to hit the U.S with those.
they have modified missles that reach almost 100 miles....thats helluva hard to hit the U.S with those.
No you don't. You need to understand the history of this situation and know that Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreement that they signed to end the Gulf War.
Don't be absurd, of course the al-Samoud II does not have the range to reach the US. The tons of missing VX nerve gas if loaded on a freighter and sailed into New York harbor would.
Small amounts of biological weapons smuggled into the US would be a clear danger.
Before you ask, no, I don't have the proof that Iraq is planning to do that but there is a reason they can't explain where those weapons went. Wouldn't you like to know where they are?
Iraq has never posed a direct threat to the US or attacked it in any way. The reasoning is "they are bad guys, they could conceivably provide weapons to other bad guys, who would in turn hurt us". The UN stance is simple -- ignore all the resolutions etc, they mean nothing, Israel has been "defying" the UN and ignoring resolutions for decades. It really boils down to this: the UN wants to see solid evidence that somehow Saddam is an immediate threat to the world, and thus wants to let the inspectors work until they find that evidence. Should they find it, military action is warranted. The US is convinced he is an immediate threat based on his past actions, and doesn't believe the inspectors will ever find the weapons, and thus wants to go in with military force. Both arguments make sense......
Should the US and allies then also have left Milosevic alone. All he was doing was killing some Muslims. He hadn't done anything to the US.
Yes, but in that case that conflict was at the verge of spreading all over the Balkans which would have had a direct impact on the national security of the United States and everybody could see it. Remeber the last two world wars started in the Balkans? BTW, it was the conservatives who strongly opposed Clintons military actions, the same conservatives who are now clamoring for war with Iraq. Why is that?
Let's not conflate issues anymoreso than our President . . . which would certainly be an achievement. At no time has Pres. Bush implied the current action planned against Saddam is retaliation for trying to knock off Poppy Bush. Clinton already took a whack at Saddam for his plotting against GHWB. Of course, Clinton and Bush have actively endorsed the violent removal of Iraq's head of state so if anything . . . aren't we even?
Your definition of an act of war essentially implicates the US in declaring war on countries throughout the world . . . less we be judged by such a standard you should probably re-think your musings.
I believe the conservative elements of the US administration wanted the Europeans to step up and take some responsibility for a problem and they wouldn't. I believe the people that did not want to get involved with Milosevic wanted the Europeans to deal with him.
There is no group in the Mid East that have that capability with regards to Saddam so the US must deal with the problem.
At this time the danger of instability in the Mid East is greater than any other region of the world. Allowing Saddam to continue his defiance of the UN only adds to that instability and encourages more problems.
And how hard is it to smuggle a few of those irrelevent missles into a country like the US? How about some VX gas or Anthrax?
The US isn't directly threatened by anything Saddam and his inbreds have. We, and the rest of the world have been and continue to be threatened by the people he might sell them to. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
Should we wait around for another smoking hole in the ground and another 3,000 dead citizens?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter