Click to subscribe to Watt-Thoughts
#92 - Iraq, the United Nations and WMD (Watt Thoughts)
We continue to see a showdown in the mid-east and New York City of various nations and Iraq. The question continues to be over WMD that Iraq possesses and that the United Nations through a number of resolutions has ordered Iraq to get rid of. The United States of America continues be build a large armed force in the mid-east to use if necessary to force Iraq to comply.
The United Nations, in particular the Security Council, has been a center of attention in this dispute. The stories quite often are that the Security Council must order war for the USA to lead a bi-lateral coalition to remove the weapons and threat in Iraq. We seem to forget what the United Nations was designed for based on the news reports we are hearing. We are hearing that if the United States of America pursues armed force that it will destroy the world's alliance.
The United Nations is NOT an alliance and was not designed to be. It has been composed from the beginning of both friends and foes of nations. Alliances are composed of your friends. Be assured that after WWII the USA did not view the USSR as their friend. We are all in the United Nations though, including Iraq. The United Nations was designed as a means to resolve nations disputes peacefully. As a last recourse the Security Council has been given power to send troops also. The Security Council has used this last recourse in only limited situations although more often recently. The Korea conflict was a United Nations operation only because the USSR walked out on the vote then. Since then and recently we have seen actions occur in Kuwait in 1991 (which the current situation is an outgrowth of), Bosnia and the Balkan holocaust.
The United States and other nations had approved in the fall ordering inspectors back in Iraq. The Inspectors thru their leader Hans Blix, report that progress is occurring in disarming Iraq and confirming it. There have been no major blocks reported yet. The inspectors report it could go better, and Iraq says it is cooperating. It is fact that they are better cooperating now than in past, but does it mean perfect no. Can we expect perfect, no.
The force the United States and its allies has built in the mid-east has helped make Iraq cooperate. The fact that they are convinced that Bush will act has helped bring about the cooperation also. The Security Council is divided on what step to take next.
This is not a case of "peace in our time" as Chamberlain proclaimed before WWII, but is actual progress. At that time no progress was occurring to peace and Germany was allowed to continue to march in Europe. Now we have inspectors who are checking for the illegal weapons, we have missiles being destroyed, and the US and allies continue to enforce a no-fly zone in north and south Iraq. Hussein has not been able to conquer any more countries and even lost the one he had compared to Hitler with Chamberlain.
So what is solution? We need to continue strict inspections giving them time they need. If Iraq fails to continue cooperation then inspectors should report and war begin. Continued peaceful means to change the regime to a more democratic one needs to continue in Iraq thru the United Nations and other nations contacts. If war comes, and we win we need to immediately install new Iraqi leadership. We do not need to post a United States or United Nations governor fro a time period. The object of this war is not to conquer Iraq and take as a United States possession (colony), but to remove WMD and free the people.
President Bush and those in the legislative and executive branches of the United States of America government are obviously privy to much additional security information than I am. They will need to make the decision to attack or not attack Iraq when they believe we are most threatened. I support the president in his efforts to solve this problem. He has worked through the United Nations to this point. This is a boil that has been facing the United States, the United Nations and the world for over 12 years. We have watched much progress toward solution in the last year after many years of Iraq (Hussein) appearing to rule the process. Hopefully war will not be necessary to solve it, but sometimes war is only way to lance the boil, and this appears to that case.
For the demonstrators crying out why don't we fight North Korea instead, they just may get their wish. North Korea has seemed more and more to want to push the USA and UN. Remember the war fought there also was under auspices of United Nations. However North Korea was not required to disarm at end of that war, just to stay in North and South Korea to stay in South. There was no clear winner of conflict there in the 1950's as opposed to Iraq in 1991. It will be interesting to see how peace movement responds if Bush attacks there instead when many in movement have been saying why not there. Keep in mind also that the stories last summer and fall guaranteed we would attack Iraq before Christmas of 2002, and the question of Ramadan was even raise.
Let's keep our nation's leaders, world leaders and troops in prayer that they will hear God's direction and lead our nation and world in the way God wants.
Dwight
Return to Watt Thoughts Web Page
Send e-mail to Dwight Watt.
Copyright 2003.