> Your first sentence states that the UN is not a toothless tiger, then your second
Even speaking of the UN in a way that infers it may or may not be able
to attack misunderstands what it is - it's like saying that water is
defective since it can't fully clean your hands by itself.
The UN's power is not in its ability to attack anyone, it's in it's
ability to motivate others to attack. Just like water's power is not
in its ability to clean your hands but it's ability to be a catalyst
for the soap to do it.
That means that saying, "The UN won't act" is non-sensical. It's a
way to deflect responsibility by obfuscating to real person(s)
responsible.
Invading Iraq was a non-sensical act - that is, if you ran the numbers
and looked at the evidence, it didn't make sense. Often you'll hear
people say, "But, everyone believed Iraq had WMD."
But almost nobody acted on that knowledge and the "evidence" Mr.
Powell provided to the UN made a fool of him. That is, most people
speculated that Iraq probably had WMD, but nobody except the US,
Britain, and Pogo Pogo decided that was enough evidence to start
bustin' caps.
It turns out they were wrong and the UN was right. Now the UN's power
is being used to isolate America by claiming we committed an illegal
act. This means America has forfeited its moral highground and spent
all of its "trust capital".
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
