What will the UN do after the US and it's allies attack Iraq

[rikzilla]

Whatever it is I doubt it will make the slightest difference in the real world.

(For those with no sense of humor, the poll is tongue-in-cheek... so have fun with it.)

If the UN does not enforce its resolutions, it proves itself an irrelevant body.

If the US invades Iraq against the wishes of the UN, the UN has been proven irrelevant.

In the end, the UN won't amount to a hill of used tissues.

[Richard G]

Who cares?

[c0rbin]

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I think some serious resolution writing will take place.

[corplinx]

My guess is this is how it will go down. At the H hour, A teams will descend on strategic location all over iraq. The first job is to always rescue the friendlies. American, Hostages, POWs, will be rounded up. They are looking for Saddam every day and will send ateams to the 3 most likely locations for him. They will also probably send SOF teams into locations where WMD are known to be. At the same time, bombers will bomb the bejesus out of Iraqi anti-air and Iraqi armored divisions.

If it goes as smoothly as panama, it will all be over before the UN can agree on a resolution to vote on.

[c0rbin]

Corplinx, I think you left out the most vital targets our armed forces will be gunning for.

There are serveral hospitals, orphanages, and food-banks in and around Bagdad that must be taken out if the US conquest is to succede.;)

[Kodiak]

I still think that the UN will end up backing the US with the minimum necessary votes and no vetos, because otherwise they will be seen as untruthful and ethically bankrupt, and thus lose all legitimacy.

The upcoming vote will be whether or not Iraq is in full compliance with 1441 (the complete disarming of Iraq). What UN ambassador in his right mind is going to publicly and officially say that Iraq has met full compliance?!? :confused:

[Tricky]

For those who think the UN is irrevelent, please note that the UN is the only reason why Bagdad is not already a smoking heap of rubble. It is naive to think that diplomacy can solve all problems. It is even more naive to think that diplomacy is useless. When people are talking, they aren't fighting.

[BillyTK]

I think either way, the UN is in big trouble; either its members will back US-led action, in which case it will be seen as no more than another tool of US foreign policy; or a resolution for war will be vetoed, in which case the US will go it alone, and the authority, legitimacy and credibility of the UN will be destroyed.

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I think either way, the UN is in big trouble; either its members will back US-led action, in which case it will be seen as no more than another tool of US foreign policy; or a resolution for war will be vetoed, in which case the US will go it alone, and the authority, legitimacy and credibility of the UN will be destroyed.

You don't think that the destruction of the "authority, legitimacy and credibility of the UN " is down to the failings of the UN.

People sneer at how the League of Nations fail to contain Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930's but how/when, when the UN has faced Dictators, has it shown itself any more effective than it's predecessor?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


You don't think that the destruction of the "authority, legitimacy and credibility of the UN " is down to the failings of the UN.
No, 'cos if that's what I thought, then that's what I would've said.
People sneer at how the League of Nations fail to contain Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930's but how/when, when the UN has faced Dictators, has it shown itself any more effective than it's predecessor?
I dunno. I thought you were history guy...