Security Council Redux

Kudos to you Gross for sugar coating the continued ineptitude of the UN Security Council, grossly exaggerating the facts, and manipulating the truth. To you, the Security Council's failure to act upon the blatant disregard of its resolutions by the Iraqi government was the result of the UN respecting sovereignty. If that was the case, then what right does the UN have to enter Iraqi territory now that Sadam's regime has been overthrown. According to your interpretation, the UN would be violating sovereignty. Contrary to what you wrote, this refusal to follow through on blatant violations of its policy has everything to do with rebuilding Iraq. The decade long incompetence of the council raises serious questions as to the ability of the council to make the hard decisions rebuilding Iraq will entail. I talk about humanitarian aide, because at the moment, the coalition (primarily the US and England) are paying for it, and on that note, are the ones who fought to open the port and the supply lines to deliver it to the Iraqi people. The UN had more than a decade to address the situation in Iraq, but as I documented, refused to make the hard decisions that were required to prevent the escalation of the Iraqi situation. The UN had the ball in its court for 13 years but was content doing little more than pass the burden from meaningless resolution to meaningless resolution. How can you have such blind faith that an organization, whose track record in Iraq over the last decade has been such a dismal failure, with the job of rebuilding a nation torn apart by 30 years of terror? There is a clear distinction between a democratically elected government and one that worships the ground the US walks on, though your ability to blur the two blows me away. Perhaps you missed the thousands of Iraqi's celebrating at Sadam's demise.

As badly as I hoped the UN would intervene and take action, in light of their failure to do so, I would rather see the US, UK, Australia, S. Korea, e.t.c. handle efforts to rebuild the country. In terms of Aide, the US fought to reopen the door to sufficient humanitarian aid operations. The UN's only response to the Iraq issue was to put in place an oil for food program (the majority of the proceeds of this program have been funneled into Sadam's coffers not the welfare of his people. In addition to that, you easily cast aside the fact that Sadam has embezzled nearly $7 Billion and not spent a cent on his people. The UN has developed a bad habit of ensuring itself in a web of resolutions, forcing alternate coalitions to act. Gross, you have demonstrated a tremendous ability to latch onto information you find favorable, and blindly reject information that refutes your beliefs. While you are correct that toppling Sadam's establishment will have a tremendous impact on the middle east and indeed the world, you seem to have eliminated the very real possibility that this change can and will be for the betterment of Iraq and the world; be more careful with your use of the "regime" word and let the situation play out before you assume a worst-case scenario that is yet to manifest itself.




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.