Are the Iraqi's just really stupid?

[Vorkosigan]

ey Vork, why are you so hard against the war effort?

Because it is evil, misguided, futile, senseless, ignorant, destructive, amoral, illegal and undemocratic?

Come on, you really think that the spl believes that every single Iraqi person is mentally challenged? It's called exaggeration.

First, I said the comment fringed on racism -- leaning there, but not there yet. Second, as I pointed out, despite the numerous errors of US planners in approaching this campaign, no one has yet made a comment here like "Are Americans stupid?" It seems acceptable to ask a question like that about Iraqis, though. Can't think why. Can you?

Secondly, it comes across like you're defending Saddam?

Only if you are completely twisted. I have never defended Hussein. Opposing this war is not the same as defending Hussein.

Saddam the evil dictator that gassed thousands of his own people.

Possibly, but some evidence indicates that it was Iran. That is probably why the Defense Intelligence Agency originally concluded it was Iran.

Saddam the evil dictator that uses torture as a weapon. Saddam is overflowing with evil and I don't see why it's so evil to go and take him out.

Hmmm.....perhaps I am not being clear enough, then.

Thirdly, you describe Americans as "foreign invadors". Come on! Do you seriously think that? America has no history of taking over other countries when it has the chance. To suggest that we are trying to "invade" Iraq to take over their country or take their oil is ridiculous!

Good rant, but one quite ignorant of American history. Why don't you start your quest by examining our invasion of the Philippines, with its brutal guerilla war, torture, scorched earth tactics, population relocation and other pleasantries? Or maybe you want to push back to the Mexican War and the guerilla war we fought then? How about Hawaii, where we overthrew and annexed an independent kingdom. Of course, let's not forget how we got our country in the first place, by expanding against Indians. We've done it lots of times before. We're doing it again now.

In fact, taking over their oil is what the British did the first time they were there, and then what we did after the Second World War. Colonialism is colonialism, no matter what rhetorical pills you wrap it in.

Iraq is merely the latest in a long line of similar wars. Now again we find ourselves navigating the tension between trying to behave in a humane way and win over the native populace, and trying to stop guerilla warfare amid a population largely hostile to us. I know what that will do to the Iraqis. What do you think it will do to us?

Fourth, your rampage through the Bush administration and all its "evils" is quite nifty, but proves very little. Even if all of the allegations are true, that doesn't mean that President Bush or the majority of the military or the American people as a whole are going there for the wrong reason!

No, but it does mean that the reasons given are lies. And thus, there is no reason for the war. Perhaps the war is not self-serving and expansionistic, but history does little to convince me otherwise, the people at the top who planned being among the most venal set of leaders yet put in power in our country's history. Did you catch the address by Powell today? We're starting to warn Syria and Iran. Why do you think that is?

You criticize Rumsfeld for being "friends" with Saddam years and years ago, but quite frankly it seems as though you are Saddams biggest ally right now.

Again, accusations like this are ridiculous. Opposing the war is not the same as supporting Hussein.

Hussein's best friends have consistently been the NeoCons, right up until 1998 when they changed their minds and stopped selling him equipment illegally. I've never sold Hussein oil equipment in defiance of sanctions. Our Vice-President has. I've never shaken Hussein's hand and called him our strong right arm in the Middle East. Dick Rumsfeld has. I've never sold Hussein biological weapons materials. The US has.

Apparently, killing your own citizens, disobeying international law, and torturing/raping those you please are all 100% nifty things to do as long as we Americans can still lay down in our Lay-z-boys with a can of beer and watch a sitcom. Well, thankfully, the U.S. actually has some resolve, unlike the terribly useless U.N. that is content to sit around while Iraq is giving them the middle finger.

Rhetoric like this is cute but essentially empty. Your argument hinges on the unfounded assumption that the only way to get rid of Hussein is a full-scale invasion with thousands of casualties.

Fifth, your all-out conspiracy theory of alternative motives for everyone are completely useless. It's easy to psychologize people. However, whether or not the Bush administration is evil to the core, it could still be true that the war is justified.

Quite true. But then, nobody has come up with a justification for it, except to say that it is one way to get rid of Hussein. Problem is, Hussein is still in power, and in fact is now stronger and has much greater support than he did ten days ago before we entered Iraq. Maybe he'll disappear and the war will magically end. I sure hope so.

Vorkosigan

[citizenkyle]

I was thinking...

There are oppressive dictators in power all over the world, human rights violations are occuring right and left, starvation is rampant worldwide, genocides continue in various corners of the planet, multiple countries have real nuclear weapons, etc, etc.

However, the one place the Bush admin "wants to liberate", just happens to be sitting on the second largest oil field in the world, and the President just happens to be intricately tied to Big Oil.

So, for Americans who are buying this "let's liberate the people of Iraq" line of bull, I must ask: Are you Americans just really stupid?

[Socrates]

Vork:

• We're starting to warn Syria and Iran. Why do you think that is?

Obviously, because they were supplying military goods to Iraq. It's perfectly reasonable to say: "If you help our enemy kill our soldiers -- and you become our enemy too!"

[Ryokan]

Kyle, if any American denies oil plays a part in this war, they are stupid. But, to characterise this war as a colonial oil war by the US and an attempt by the current admin to pad there buddies pockets is also stupid, and just an exercise in fashionable cynicism besides. I have explained the way I see this situation, but if you haven't seen it I am happy to repeat myself.

What do you recommend we do to deal with Saddam, considering 12 years and billions of dollars have been spent trying to use nonmilitary methods?

[Ryokan]

that second part was addressed to Vork. Sorry, I am running on mostly caffeine

[Kyle]

"Because it is evil, misguided, futile, senseless, ignorant, destructive, amoral, illegal and undemocratic?"

Quite the elephant hurl, wouldn't you say?

1. EVIL

Despite your rather impressive ability to come up with an ulterior motive for everybody, I don't see how this war is evil. Like I mentioned earlier -and you agreed- even if the Bush administration is corrupt does not mean that the war is unjustified. As it happens, I find the war effort to be a merciful and kind act for all of the civilians living under Saddam's terror regime.

2. MISGUIDED

I presume by this you mean that participating in war will not accomplish what we wish to. How is that so? By defeating the regime we will remove an evil dictator from power, set up a democracy, and lessen the threats of WMDs from Iraq.

3. FUTILE

So, you are saying that this war will have no useful result? What about all of the Iraqi citizens that will be freed from a regime of terror? I sure would like you to tell the Iraqi people that there will be "no useful result" from ousting Saddam.

4. SENSELESS

It makes perfect sense to me. Get rid of a perfectly corrupt regime and replace it with a democracy in order to help millions of Iraqi citizens gain their freedom, and in the process essentially remove any threat whatsoever of a WMD attack from Iraq.

5. IGNORANT

It may be true that many of those that are pro-war are ignorant (perhaps I am as well), but you also need to look at your side of the fence. We have American citizens is "peace" protests where fights break out, and you have Americans stepping on the American flag. That right there is ignorance to the core.

6. DESTRUCTIVE

Yep indeed, mostly destructive to Saddam and his evil "inner circle".

7. AMORAL

Allow me to quote myself:

"As it happens, I find the war effort to be a merciful and kind act for all of the civilians living under Saddam's terror regime."

8. ILLEGAL

By whose standards? Are you serious? War is not supposed to be "legal". But we have committed no war crimes that I am aware of, unlike the Iraqi army that is directly disobeying the Geneva convention with their treatment of POWs. Just because the U.N. is around doesn't make it "illegal" to participate in military action, and even if it did, so what?

9. UNDEMOCRATIC

This is most certainly untrue. The Congress voted powerfully in favor of using force against Iraq upon the presidents command, and the president made the decision as to when that time was. So how is it not "democratic"? Do you want the president to go door to door and take opinion polls? Truth of it is, the president and the Congress' actions WERE democratic, and the fact that you don't like the outcome does not change that.

"Opposing this war is not the same as defending Hussein."

True, but inaction against Saddam does not equal "peace". In the same manner, if you find a woman being raped in the streets by a puny guy that you could stop, is it "moral" for you to stand there and let the man do as he pleases? Just something for you to consider. The issue is not uni-dimensional.

"No, but it does mean that the reasons given are lies."

Oh really? "You beat your child, everything you say is a lie". How's that logic?

At most it means that it is "possible" that the reasons given for are lies, but it proves dirt nothing. Besides, you still haven't proved that the whole administration is evil, want to finish with your tyrade of pointing the finger? So far you haven't said anything specific on Bush, why don't you dig up some dirt on him?

"Rhetoric like this is cute but essentially empty. Your argument hinges on the unfounded assumption that the only way to get rid of Hussein is a full-scale invasion with thousands of casualties."

Really now....So what do you say we do? I'd really love to hear this!

"But then, nobody has come up with a justification for it, except to say that it is one way to get rid of Hussein."

My justification is freeing the Iraqi people and getting rid of the threat of WMDs. What's wrong with that?

"Hussein is still in power"

With our concern for casualties, you actually thought we could get Saddam out of power by now? Not without a lucky hit. Your expectations are too high.

"and in fact is now stronger and has much greater support than he did ten days ago before we entered Iraq."

Whoop-dee-doo. So more people "sympathize" with him now. Who cares? He'll be dead before you know it. Personally, I don't really care what these ignorance-filled American hating countries think, the plain ol' fact is that this war is justified and it will accomplish its goals. Besides, most other countries are always just waiting for a reason to hate the U.S. It's hard making friends when you have the most power, but in the end it is really quite insignificant whether or not all these other countries support us.

TO CITIZENKYLE: I will admit that oil could have a bit of influence on the matter, but that does not make it wrong. Whenever you are doing something like this you have to weigh all the options, and I'm sure oil did come into the equation a bit.

[citizenkyle]

Ryokan:

Kyle, if any American denies oil plays a part in this war, they are stupid. But, to characterise this war as a colonial oil war by the US and an attempt by the current admin to pad there buddies pockets is also stupid, and just an exercise in fashionable cynicism besides.

Is there anyone who stands to reap a financial windfall from this war besides Bush's oil buddies? There may be other peripheral reasons to depose Saddam (he's a bag guy, et al), but let's not pretend that we would be having this war if it wasn't for oil. Like Deepthroat said: "follow the money."

Ryokan:
What do you recommend we do to deal with Saddam, considering 12 years and billions of dollars have been spent trying to use nonmilitary methods?

I realize this was addressed to Vork, but hopefully you don't mind if I chime in.

The question presupposes that the non-military methods have failed. But I don't think that's been demonstrated at all. So far as I can see, Saddam has been well contained for the last 12 years. I am not aware of any countries he has invaded, chemical weapons he has launched against other nations, or nuclear weapons he has developed. And it has not been effectively established that he supports terrorism (unlike some of the US's "friends" in Saudi Arabia). Does Saddam have an interest in doing some of these things? Probably. But that's what the whole "containment" strategy is for. Did Saddam cause some hassles? Sure. But you don't go to war over hassles.

You said, "billions of dollars have spent on non-military methods". But over a hundred billion dollars have already been spent on this war, and that cost will continue to escalate the longer this thing drags on. Not to mention the cost of reconstruction or the enormous blow the world economy (which coould amount to a trillion dollars). The cost of peace is absolute peanuts compared to the cost of war.

At this point, we must do some prioritizing. Saddam poses nowhere near the threat of the various environmental crisises (which the Bush admin happily ignores) or other nations with actual nuclear capabilities, or Al Qaeda, or world poverty...the list goes on. Hundreds of billions of dollars could be better spent tackling these pressing issues.

We could also consider the idea that, as Howard Zinn said, "War is no longer a legitimate means of resolving conflicts between nations." Call it idealistic or naive if you want, but I think if nations really committed to that ideal, we'd be surprised at the other solutions they could come up with.

[Ryokan]

I agree Kyle, we wouldn't have this war without oil. Saddam couldn't afford his weapons, the west wouldn't have meddled in that region to cause this mess, AL Queda wouldn't have money from the mid east to cause 9/11, which started up this premptive policy, and it would have been harder to Congress sell a war that was going ot be so expensive without oil money given back to us, as well as less politically expedient.
But, all those things above are the case, and really bounce around the issue that caused the Iraqi war. 1. is Iraq a threat? 2. Would war make us more or less safe vs. our other options? I would argue that containment started to fail in 1998, if not early, and it was merely a matter of time before Saddam attempted to fulfill his dream of being the new Saladin. Given our recent experience with terrorism, I don't think we should sit back and wait for rogue regimes to target us or sell their weapons to those who would. And you ask, why Iraq vs. say, Al Queda or North Korea. To begin with, Al Queda is being, and has been, fought fairly well thus far without the forces involved in Iraq. The US can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Secondly, vs. say, North Korea, Iraq is more politically palatable to the public, and offers us a chance to send a message to more rational regimes. Thirdly, North Korea hasn't invaded its neighbors in 50 years, not 12. Finally, we haven't expended all our options there, and North Korea, until recently, has had all its options expended. The last reason goes for most other countries we could consider preemptively acting against.
As far as the enviroment goes, there is so much disagreement as to what the problem is, what good solutions would be, and to the extent of the problem. It is very difficult for any gov., even one inclined to help, to make a good decision.

I don't think that, whle nations are run by corrupt or expansionistic dictators, that Howard Zinn is correct at all. It would be nice, but...

So, my thought on Iraq is, sooner or later they would have to be dealt with, almost certainly militarily, and oil & politics made it sooner vs other targets.

[Epoetker]

Observe the connecting link between all of Vorkosigan's assertions: HATRED. Anyone who, at any time, did any sort of business with any non-democratic government is automatically damaged goods and anathema. Everyone's actions at one point in history determines their attitude for the rest of their life. While exhorting spl_cadet to forgive the Iraqis, he pours out vitriol on people who have, by all accounts, changed their ways considerably since conducting business with questionable people. Truly a Pharisee among Skeptics, he would have undoubtedly executed these people had he been in power. The comparison to French Revolution intellectuals and sympathizers becomes more apt with every word that comes out of his mouth.

What "refutation?" Your replies consist of "It just isn't that way!" and "You're a bad man!"

I believe I'll let the calculus of values among the democratic population here determine how effective they've been

Your "honorable" Mr. Cheney has made secret deals with oil companies and sold equipment to Iraq in the mid-1990s in violation of sanctions.

Sources on relative illegality of the deals, please. And as I said before, what's so bad about selling oil processing equipment for an economy whose only means of support is the UN oil-for-food program? It's a rather humanitarian violation, if you ask me. Sort of like the illegal Kosovo war

Your "Honorable" Mr. Perle does business with companies that are fronts for the Chinese communists, a fact that recently sparked his resignation from several posts in advance of a Congressional probe.

I'm only aware of him resigning a single chairmanship that had practically nothing to do with these China issues. Was he aware that they were fronts? China is quite adept at fooling Western businessmen or diverting profits from business ventures into various government programs, and the debate on the relative effectiveness of free trade as an aide to Chinese democratization (some successes, some failures, and your complete lack of acknowledgement of this debate speaks volumes) is long and continuing. Given the eclipse of partially totalitarian China by totally totalitarian Iraq, Iran, and especially North Korea (whom China can still put pressure on for nuclear non-proffing, given that it supports something like %90 of its economy), this focus on business with the Chinese strikes me as rather disengenuous. There comes times when you have to pick the lesser of two evils to fight, and this is surely a time when China is the lesser.

Your Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld was Hussein's good buddy throughout the 1980s.

Yes, we used a dictatorship to fight another dictatorship that had previously taken American citizens hostage. In the context of finishing up the war against Soviet totalitarianism, a far greater threat to global democracy than anybody in the increasingly isolationist China. Such distinctions between greater and lesser evils are, of course, completely lost on you. Feel free to rage against the people who actually do something about their dictators when they turn traitor, and who actually change their views as pertinent to the situation. All from the safety of your Taiwanese residence, yet another comparatively democratic American protectorate.

None of these men loves or supports democracy

They do, and they have a much better strategy at implementing it within the context of global political realities than you ever will.

that is plain from their actions in office and their behavior throughout their long careers,

So you saw NO CHANGE in Cheney's or Rumsfeld's position after 9/11. You utter fool.

culminating, of course, in this senseless and illegal war that has wrecked our position in the world.

This war did nothing other than shine light on realities that had been hidden beneath the surface ever since the Berlin wall fell, and some long before that. Western Europe has ALWAYS been increasingly contrary to objectives requiring military force, China has ALWAYS been an isolantionist dictatorial semi-capitalist oligarchy, and the Arab world, apart from moderating places like Qatar, Jordan, and Kuwait, has ALWAYS been a cesspool of failed states with radical Islam and anti-Americanism increasingly gaining a foothold.

You know my position on "illegal;" as far as "senseless" is considered, this war, if the neocon pundits still hold the stranglehold of influence I think they do, is the last, best hope for a democratic, civilized, secure Arab state that DOESN'T produce and fund suicide bombers, that DOESN'T make Islamism the focus of its governmental structure and operation, and DOESN'T try to make itself into a big shot in the region by acquiring WMDs and threatening Israel.

[Epoetker]

Notes to CKyle:

The question presupposes that the non-military methods have failed. But I don't think that's been demonstrated at all. So far as I can see, Saddam has been well contained for the last 12 years.

The problem with containment (i.e: You can kill as many of your own people as you like, but stay away from other countries around you!) is that it is in the short run immoral, in the long run ineffective. It provides a means for the dictator to consolidate his hold on power, a justification for an expensive continuous prescence around the dictator's country, and an encouragement to the dictator to seek other goals and other means of acheiving them. For instance:

I am not aware of any countries he has invaded, chemical weapons he has launched against other nations, or nuclear weapons he has developed.

Given the failure of the inspections regime previously (it found its greatest caches of weapons from defectors, which Saddam then subsequently discouraged with executions) we might not until we have full run of the country. Remember that Syria is the second stronghold of the Baath party, and the border is quite amicably manned. Saddam certainly isn't stupid; he probably knows that the Syrian-backed Hezbollah guerillas will probably deploy any of his chemical weapons much more usefully and untraceably than he could with SCUD launches.

[QUOTEAnd it has not been effectively established that he supports terrorism (unlike some of the US's "friends" in Saudi Arabia).[/QUOTE]

Israel, Israel, Israel. 25,000 to a family who educates their children in the Jew(and American, if they're lucky)killing death cult. The terrorists certainly think both grand targets of opportunity, and any propaganda Saddam spreads to that effect is extremely harmful to American interests and allies in the region.

Saddam have an interest in doing some of these things? Probably. But that's what the whole "containment" strategy is for. Did Saddam cause some hassles? Sure. But you don't go to war over hassles.

When these "hassles" are potentially devastating, I would disagree with you. Reckoning that Saddam won't use what inspectors haven't found is a much more risky proposition than making sure he can't use what we KNOW he doesn't have. Uncertainty breeds fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. And suffering is bad for the economy.

[Vorkosigan]

[While exhorting spl_cadet to forgive the Iraqis, he pours out vitriol on people who have, by all accounts, changed their ways considerably since conducting business with questionable people.

'pet, I think the spectacle of you excoriating an atheist for advocating compassion to a Christian brings your views into remarkably sharp perspective.

Not to mention makes my irony meter blow a fuse.

effectiveness of free trade as an aide to Chinese democratization (some successes, some failures, and your complete lack of acknowledgement of this debate speaks volumes) is long and continuing.

Purely as an aside, I've written on this topic in a couple of commentaries in the Taipei Times.

this focus on business with the Chinese strikes me as rather disengenuous. There comes times when you have to pick the lesser of two evils to fight, and this is surely a time when China is the lesser.

Who are you arguing with? <shrug> You might be able to be more sanguine about China; I am not. I live in Taiwan, if you might recall. Compared to North Korea, which really only seriously South Korea, China is a major problem with running border problems with almost all its neighbors, genocide in Tibet, and revanchism with regard to Mongolia and expansionism with regard to Taiwan.

threat to global democracy than anybody in the increasingly isolationist China.

'pet, if your understand of China is that it is "increasingly isolationist" then you are seriously deficient in your understanding of the international scene. Not since the Northern Song China been so engaged with the rest of the world from such as position of power.

pertinent to the situation. All from the safety of your Taiwanese residence, yet another comparatively democratic American protectorate.

Yes, I feel very safe here, with Chinese nukes pointed at me, and the US weakening its international position, and pushing Japan and South Korea toward further accommdation with the rising power across the Strait from me......

So you saw NO CHANGE in Cheney's or Rumsfeld's position after 9/11. You utter fool.

I didn't see any change, and neither have most commentators. The NeoCons continue, as far as I can see, to oppose democracy at home while expanding their corporate clients' profits abroad. That has always been their perspective. Nothing has changed, except tactics.

and some long before that. Western Europe has ALWAYS been increasingly contrary to objectives requiring military force,

I take it you mean since WWII, and not the five centuries of colonialism prior to that.

China has ALWAYS been an isolantionist dictatorial semi-capitalist oligarchy,

Not always. Different dynasties and regimes have had different policies. Why do you insist on making blanket statements? Certainly China is much more engaged with the world now than it was in the 1960s.

d the Arab world, apart from moderating places like Qatar, Jordan, and Kuwait, has ALWAYS been a cesspool of failed states with radical Islam and anti-Americanism increasingly gaining a foothold.

Our invasion has only made the last two stronger. Have you seen how effectively we have shoved Musharaf into a corner? What will you do when his government falls and Islamic radicals get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

And again, another bit of blanket nonsense. Iraq and Iran, to name just two, were prosperous states prior to war and revolution. And the "failure" of democracy in the Arab world is due in part to US activities there, overthrowing governments, backing dictators, and generally behaving in the most anti-democratic fashion possible.

ratic, civilized, secure Arab state that DOESN'T produce and fund suicide bombers, that DOESN'T make Islamism the focus of its governmental structure and operation, and DOESN'T try to make itself into a big shot in the region by acquiring WMDs and threatening Israel.

We're in it deep, then, because the NeoCons will certainly not give us such a state. And may not get a chance, in any case, if the war drags on a long time.

'pet, have you given any thought to what might happen if we take Baghdad, kill Hussein and the Iraqis obstinately refuse to surrender?

Vorkosigan

[Kyle]

Not to CitizenKyle, it is terribly easy to come up with "motives" for people. Even in the absolute lack of a motive, you could claim that the president is only acting to gain public support, etc. So, I think we should take claims that "the president is just going for oil" with a large grain of salt.

Also, the president said a while back that he was going to wage a war on terrorism. He said it was going to be long, and some would lose interest, but he said he would go on. Iraq is merely the next in line in an attempt to limit terrorism. Perhaps it is not the best target, which is debatable, but why not just assume that the president is continuing with the war against terrorism?

Note to Vork, I realize that America is nowhere near perfect. We have made, and continue to make, tremendous mistakes. But why now are you so completely skeptical that America is really trying to do the right thing? I can only speak for myself, not for president Bush, but I know that I agree with this war for moral reasons.

Also, in your last statement, what do you mean by "refuse to surrender"? Surrender to what?! To us trying to set up a democracy?!? Once Saddam's dead, what's left to do but decide who the next leader is?

Also, you have not answered my question of how you are going to oust Saddam without military force.

[Vorkosigan]

Note to Vork, I realize that America is nowhere near perfect. We have made, and continue to make, tremendous mistakes. But why now are you so completely skeptical that America is really trying to do the right thing?

History? Instead of asking me, why don't you go out and read the history of our interventions overseas?

Also, in your last statement, what do you mean by &quot;refuse to surrender&quot;? Surrender to what?! To us trying to set up a democracy?!? Once Saddam's dead, what's left to do but decide who the next leader is?

I just re-read Rayne Kruger's excellent Good-Bye Dolly Gray about the Boer War, which has numerous parallels with this one. The British rolled into Pretoria, and Roberts declared a victory. Only somebody forgot to tell the Boers. A couple of years later, some 40,000 deaths, scorched earth, concentration camps, and acts of humanity and savagery on both sides, Kitchener and 415,000 British troops finally got things under control. And left a legacy of hatred passed down through the generations. <shudder>

Suppose we kill Hussein and take Baghdad, and yet the Iraqis continue fighting us? What then? Does anyone know exactly what the Administration's exit plan is? They seem to think at the moment, according to the Washington Post, that the Pentagon will run Iraq during the occupation. But they are awfully quiet on that transition.

Also, you have not answered my question of how you are going to oust Saddam without military force.

LOL. That's because there is probably no way to oust Hussein without some application of military force! The overflights are a minimum, in my view. But I wouldn't start doing anything without international legitimacy. And we don't have that at this point.

Vorkosigan

[GrayPilgrim]

International Legitmacy? Or France, Germany and Russia's permission? As they (read US, UK and Spain) had the votes to pass the second resolution but did not go forward in the face of France's promises unilateral veto, I think that your nit pickin' is silly.

You keep speaking of the US's many errors but seem blind to and UN errors. Why is that?

[Ryokan]

Although UN support would have been nice, I'd argue, the UN, with a hideous track record and lack of any sort of democratic mechanisms, isn't interantionally legitimate.