I think there are (were) a few differences, Tracy...

1) Saddam's Iraq was subject to 2 "no fly zones", one to 'protect' the Kurds and the other the Shia (sp?). So there was no on-going genocide in Iraq.

2) The Iraqi people did have a form of 'support' from the U.N. by way of re-establishing the inspections to find WMD (as well as the corrupt 'oil-for-food' program).

If there are problems with how the U.N. is structured and/or operates (specifically vetoes by other-minded countries) then ignoring the U.N. is not the answer. Doing so makes the U.N. meaningless and, at best, the equivalent of a 'flag of convenience'. As bad, it pushes the "disagreeable" countries to become bigger powers (again), if only to defend themselves when the other 'like-minded nations' turn on them.

I think, too, that Afghanistan is demonstrating the 'next level' of such a policy and it is my distinct impression that NATO is more and more wishful that it never engaged there.



>Interesting points. Why is it that Darfur deserves UN troops to stop the genocide, but those who suffered at the hands of Saddam in Iraq did not? I guess mass murders, rapes, and shooting are worse than chemical/biological attacks in the eyes of the world? This comment has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or why the U.S. went in. I do find it interesting that those suffering in Iraq got no support form the UN while Darfur seems to be getting support worldwide. I don't even want to go into the tragedy of Rwanda. Darfur deserves action of course. There are problems with UN - it is not ideal. I tend to agree with this:
>
>The NATO model in Kosovo suggests that in the real world, states have an alternative to going it alone or doing nothing when the UN Security Council cannot agree on action. And that is for like-minded states -- especially the world's great democracies -- to band together and act when the UN will not. Of course, every effort must be made to get Security Council authorization for using force to uphold international order. But when such authorization is blocked by a few states -- especially by states like Russia or China that do not share the values that unite democracies -- then the responsibility to act must devolve to the democratic states that depend on maintaining a just and secure world order.
>
>The challenge, therefore, is not only to insure that the UN acts when it must, but to build viable structures of cooperation among democratic states to insure that there will be action when the UN does not.
>
>http://www.cfr.org/publication/7547/pushing_the_un_to_act_when_it_must.html
>
>
>
>
>>>If the UN sends troops in to Darfur, would the same be true?
>>
>>Probably, but UN intervention backed up by SC would be way more
>>justified/legal then US private wars with Afganistan/Iraq.
>>
>>Yes, UN troops should go in Darfur latest by Octobar.
>>- Of 2004!
>>If just small part of that power went to Darfur instead, genocide that happened there could hv been avoided.
>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>>Now (as Collin Powel said for Iraq) situation is that ;
>>>>'Since you broke it you own it'
>>>>And as you said, they hv to stay there for as long as it takes
>>>>for these two countries to be back on their two feet.