BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,602
- 2,180
The UN hasn't the authority to intervene in our internal affairs? That's what Iraq, A-Stan, and Syria thought.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, so that was not an internal affair. President Bush(41) gets a UNSCR demanding they withdraw or face military action. There was no UN Resolution in 2003 authorizing the use of military action for President Bush (43). Libya was a NATO Action wasn't it? Afghanistan was giving al Qaeda aid. We didn't need the UN to defend ourselves against that threat.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because first Kuwait was cut off of Iraq during the redrawing of the map following WW1 and secondly because Kuwait was slant drilling under Iraq. It was Iraqi business not George Bush's. there was a UN resolution in Libya for use of force to protect civilians which was abused to overthrow the Libyan government which is why Russia and China vowed to not allow the US to do it again in Syria and why they blocked all attempts at the UN for use of force there. Afghanistan was giving al Qaida aid and now Obama is giving al Qaida aid.
I stand corrected on the Libyan Resolution Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone over Libya, Authorizing All Necessary Measures to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions
Iraq was snookered into invading Kuwait. When Sadda asked our ambassador what we thought of a military solution to the crisis, if he was told in no uncertain term that we would defend Kuwait like it was our 51 state I don't think Saddam would have invaded.
The support Afghanistan gave to al Qaeda is not the same as al Qaeda linked Islamic radicals inadvertently receiving military hardware distributed to the rebels. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the President is guilty of providing the type of aid as the Taliban did in any way shape or form.