Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 2 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Dec 2 2004, 11:32 AM
As the Oil for Food scandal continues to beat on has anyone changed their minds about the UN, and the U.S.'s refusal to wait for consent to go into Iraq? It sure seems more and more likely that an agreement wasn't possible under the weight of the scandals that plagued the organization.
Not asking anyone to change their opinion on the war itself, I think that rug has been flogged to death ... but was UN agreement even feasible?
|
The only people who are going to change their minds about the US's refusal to wait based on these developments are those that felt that the US faced a genuine threat from Iraq that necessitated an invasion, but also felt that it should only be waged with UN approval.
Since I never felt that there was a credible threat to the US from Iraq, the fact that the UN may never have agreed doesn't change my opinion over their choice to invade unilaterally. [/b][/quote]
Well clearly my question was pointed toward the former group ... those that said they needed UN agreement before going in.
That was a pretty good sized camp.