of an attack being dealt with by the UN. Granted, there was a lot of economic incentive on behalf of the US, which helped ensure that something was done.
And you are correct in that the precedent only breaks fifty years of 'tradition', since the UN was formed.
However, the US did go through the UN before invading Afghanistan. Which means that for as long as the UN has been in existence, the requirement of UN being the only body that can authorize a military attack has held true.
And that is what the US is now breaking, making the UN practically pointless, toothless and irrelevant.
So without the UN, the best chance of world peace would seem to be US puppet regimes in all countries. Which would inevitably cause resistance movements all over the place. The actions of these resistance movements would look a lot like what terrorists have hit the US with recently.
And so we have the ever declining spiral of US military might being used against civilian targets in response to terrorist activities, and civil liberties being taken away, until the entire world looks like a concentration camp. Led by the US, granted, so of course US citizens would have 'preferred' status.
I see the UN as the hope for peace in this world, and the current attack on Iraq as an attack on the principles that the UN was founded on. |
