Was the U.S invasion of Iraq justified?

[Zepplin]

Well if that's is the case, then there's no point in having an organization like the UN then is there if countries are going to just do what they want anyway?

Didn't the UN also say that the US invasion of Grenada unlawful aswell but that still went ahead? It kind of makes a mockery of if it was unlawful or not because countries might say something but then just let it happen anyway.

The UN (well, member countries) would do as much as they can to avoid confrontation.
You're right, what is the point of them?
The members that make it up are probably more worried about state of the global markets than the state of sovereignties of countries.
I'm sure though if one of the bigger members were attacked it would take a bit more action

 

[pwarbi]

The UN (well, member countries) would do as much as they can to avoid confrontation.
You're right, what is the point of them?
The members that make it up are probably more worried about state of the global markets than the state of sovereignties of countries.
I'm sure though if one of the bigger members were attacked it would take a bit more action

It just makes me think that we're going round in circles a bit here. If it wasn't justified then why didn't countries do more to stop it, if it was then theres no issue and what's happened since in the middle east was inevitable anyway.

Like whats been mentioned already, if countries and the UN were against it, then why didn't they do something about it instead of just no doubt sending out a 'strongly worded press statement'?

 

[Scorpion]

It just makes me think that we're going round in circles a bit here. If it wasn't justified then why didn't countries do more to stop it, if it was then theres no issue and what's happened since in the middle east was inevitable anyway.

Like whats been mentioned already, if countries and the UN were against it, then why didn't they do something about it instead of just no doubt sending out a 'strongly worded press statement'?

What do you mean by doing something about it? The UN doesn't have an arm wing to impose a countermeasure against that. All they can do is voice their disagreement. That's all. The UN should have suspended the US membership at least.

 

[Zepplin]

The UN would probably lose more by penalizing the US, they are its biggest member.

NATO would only get involved if one of its members were involved (which in the end they were in a peace keeping role....after the invasion).

It's like the US is too big to be able to prevent them from doing as they want, isn't the president even untouchable even after he finishes office from legal avenues?

 

[pwarbi]

What do you mean by doing something about it? The UN doesn't have an arm wing to impose a countermeasure against that. All they can do is voice their disagreement. That's all. The UN should have suspended the US membership at least.

Suspending the US membership, like you said is what I'd have expected, and what I meant by doing something about it. Simply telling a child not to do something as they would hurt themselves, isn't enough, you have to try and intervene. If you don't, and that child carries on and does hurt themselves, do we blame the child or is it our fault for not stopping them?

I'm not saying the UN could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, but a lot more would have been done if it was say China, or Japan, any other country that was leading the invasion for example. Because it was the US, the UN frowned upon it, but that was it.