Why Didn't the UN Push For Sanctions Against the US If Its "preemptive" Strike Was So Unjustified

Foundations of Knowledge and Understanding I | 09/23/03

[PPHSFL]

My latest discussion in my college Honors class.

[PPHSFL]

This is the latest topic on the discussion board for my class. As you can probably guess, it has mostly attracted those of the liberal way of thinking. Of course, I have a different way of thinking. The UN didn't pass sanctions on the US because: 1. They couldn't because we would veto the sanctions in the Security Council. 2. The reaction in the US would most likely be enough to finally force the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The additional part of this reason is that the UN would go bankrupt without the contributions of the US. 3. We did the right thing. It would not look good for the UN to pass sanctions on us after we freed 25 million people. Your thoughts on this topic are welcome. Sometime later this week I will post a link to this discussion on the class board. If you are wondering about my previous discussion, "Was 9/11 a Tragedy?" it started a very heated discussion in which I went against those who think that Communism was misunderstood, that we shouldn't support Israel and South Korea, and those who call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters" This discussion is likely to begin with this topic. Thanks for responding to this. If I did anyhting wrong, please help me to fix it, or to remove the topic altogether.

[MontanaBeth]

Fight the good fight.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The UN didn't pass sanctions on the US because:

1. They couldn't because we would veto the sanctions in the Security Council.

2. The reaction in the US would most likely be enough to finally force the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The additional part of this reason is that the UN would go bankrupt without the contributions of the US.

3. We did the right thing. It would not look good for the UN to pass sanctions on us after we freed 25 million people.

The first is true, and moots the others. Absent the third, of course, Bush would probably be driven from office by the journalistic Establishment and its self-fulfilling Vietnam scenario. But unfortunately the second is not true; we shoulda done that long ago but it's obvious that we cannot muster a strong majority which will go along with that.

[NYFriend]

"The UN didn't pass sanctions on the US because:

1. They couldn't because we would veto the sanctions in the Security Council.
2. The reaction in the US would most likely be enough to finally force the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. The additional part of this reason is that the UN would go bankrupt without the contributions of the US. "

Both true. The other issue is that sanctions agaisnt the US would collaps the world economy. So would sanctions on Japan or China. Also, on some level, sanctions don't work like they used to because of Multi National Corporations.

[catch]

Pre-emptive strikes are old news. They're just targeting Bush. Kosovo was a pre-emptive strike (was Slobodan an imminent threat?). Haiti was a pre-emptive strike (ditto Baby Doc). Panama was a pre-emptive strike (ditto Noriega). This should be a key GOP talking-head talking point, but it never has been.

[alisasny]

and if they did and we ignored the sanctions who would enforce them ....
we would have to invade ourselves

: )))

[Billthedrill]

One of the biggest reasons is simply that the U.S. was acting within the provisions of UN Resolution 1441, which was the culmination of more than a dozen such resolutions on the topic. For the UN to pass a resolution against the U.S. it would have to re-open debate on those and show why they were not applicable. You might check the wording on the link to see why that would be a very difficult thing to do.

It's also important to remember that any French veto in the Security Council would also have run contrary to this longstanding UN position, a point Kofi and the boys have been mighty silent about.

And thirdly, it would have done nothing but emphasize how ineffectual UN resolutions are - U.S. policy would not have changed, Saddam would have fallen anyway, and the resolution would have been a huge stumbling block for the current UN campaign to take a more activist role in the rebuilding of the country.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Because we'd just veto it heh heh heh - We rule!

[kaktuskid]

Except Saddam was already a bad "actor"
1.Invading other countries
2.Using WMD on his own citizens
3.Shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones
4.Financing Pali suicide bomber groups that have killed Americans in Israel
5.Ordering assasination of US presidents

[alisasny]

Funny see my post #6 : )

[Ben Ficklin]

Under international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US has a legal right to anticpatory self-defense.

Reply 7 points to the UN document(rez 1441) that lists all the Security Council Resolutions with which Iraq was out of compliance. Resolution 678 was of most importance. The UN's failure to enforce 678 put the US and other nations in danger.

The US's rights to self-defense are now being tried in the court of public opinion.

[Question_Assumptions]

I highly recommend The Black Book of Communism if you are dealing with those that think communism is swell. The book Heaven on Earth is also useful.

[PPHSFL]

I did recommend the first book. I will now look at the second book that you mentioned. Thanks!
This discussion is now on my class board.

[Sender]

I'm not sure how the UN would handle the conundrum of sanctions against a member with veto power. Maybe they have some rule about that?

Regardless, the one factor that I think is the deciding one is US funding. They have a hard time already convincing us to fund a huge percentage of their operations, and they can't continue without our dollars. Any sanctions against the US would probably be deducted from our UN dues...and then some! They won't sanction their cash cow...they just talk trash about us in their peculiar elitist manner :)

[Question_Assumptions]

The final paragraph of Muravchik's Heaven on Earth:

By no means all socialists were killers or amoral. Many were sincere humanitarians; mostly these were the adherents of democratic socialism. But democratic socialism turned out to be a contradiction in terms, for where socialists proceeded democratically, the found themselves on a trajectory that took them further and further from socialism. Long before Lenin, socialist thinkers had anticipated the problem. The imaginary utopias of Plato, Moore, Campanella and Edward Bellamy, whose 1887 novel, Looking Backward, was the most popular socialist book in American history, all relied on coercion, as did the plans of The Conspiracy of Equals. Only once did democratic socialists manage to create socialism. That was the kibbutz. And after they had experienced it, they chose democratically to abolish it.

[PPHSFL]

Thank you for the excerpt from the book. I will go to the library to look for it when I get the chance (and that may be awhile).

[Arpege92]

Why didn't the UN push for sanctions against the US?

Because the UN needs us more than we need them!