Quote:
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Why are your reactions different to having the U.N. be a protectorate any different the the US acting as the same temporary role? You can only say that because you dont like/ hate the US.
|
My personal preference for the U.N. to be put in control of the situation are as follows.
1/ with the exception of the U.S. polls in most civilised countries, including Britain and Australia, have indicated that the populace would prefer it.That would appear to be the kind of democracy that George Bush claims is vital for Iraq.
2/ A multinational peacekeeping force would lessen the likelihood of revenge terrorist attacks against a single nation.If George Bush goes it alone,he puts his country at greater risk of terrorist attacks.
3/ A multinational effort to foster democracy in Iraq would be less open to claims of interference,puppet government,etc.
4/ A U.N. led mission would lessen the risk of a split within NATO,and would serve to strengthen the U.N. in its role of global peacemaker.
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.It seems ironic that when faced with a similar objective 60 years later, the U.S.and the U.N. both claim to want the same outcome,and yet they cannot agree on the execution of the operation.