Iraq and the United Nations

(First published April 8, 2003)

President Bush makes a good case for action, given that he is only interested in the enforcement of the United Nations resolution forcing Iraq to disarm. How will the UN have any creditability if they do not enforce the resolutions they enact? Mr. Bush also has a valid point regarding Iraq’s twelve year history of defying the requirement to disarm. If the UN is going to be a creditable organization, it must act. Talking about action is not in the best interest of the UN or the USA.

I pray we do not go to war, but given Iraq’s disregard for the requirement to disarm, I can see no other solution. President Kennedy once said, referring to the Cuban missile crisis, that the “US cannot allow evil men the means to wage nuclear war." I think we can expand his meaning to, “We cannot allow evil men the means to wage war with weapons of mass destruction.” No one hates the idea of American service men and women risking their lives more than me, but left unanswered Iraq will be an even larger problem for the world in the future.

It is disheartening that some of our allies do not support us in this task. No one wants war. We do not want war, but can we afford to let the United Nations simply be an organization that makes idle threats? Will that not nullify the entire point of having the UN in the first place? Does anyone doubt that the USA possesses the primary teeth that the UN has at its disposal? How can our country continue to be a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples everywhere if we turn a blind eye to the problems of the world?

If Saddam Hussein will not cooperate with the UN -- and he has not for twelve years -- do we just sit back and allow him to build ICBMs? He clearly does not possess the wisdom and stability that is required of governments with nuclear capability. How do you suggest we stop his form of aggression?