Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I doubt the "Uniting for Peace" procedure would be of any benefit to the U.S. now - and could work against our interests in the future.
1 posted on 03/12/2003 11:21:55 PM PST by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: HAL9000
you're right - there are more countries of the likes of Libya and Cuba in the General Assembly than decent nations.
2 posted on 03/12/2003 11:28:31 PM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: HAL9000
Yup... and it could set a precedent that would come back to haunt us in the future. While UN approval would be nice as political cover for our friend Tony Blair, its not necessary to finish off Saddam Hussein. Let the French go ahead with their veto in the Security Council. History will record they were the party responsible for the UN's subsequent demise as a credible body.
3 posted on 03/12/2003 11:28:52 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: HAL9000
The council still maintains responsibility for enforcement

What? The UN plans to start enforcing resolutions?

...so naysayers among the permanent members can likely prevent the actual dispatching of troops.

Sure, France is going to prevent us from dispatching troops. LOL

5 posted on 03/13/2003 3:07:39 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristcorecard/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson