|
That's one perspective. Another perspective is that the UN has almost always failed to address every major world problem, and so if it really is/was a question of the security of the US, solving the problem of national security was easier and more important to do than solving the problem of the UN.
One could argue that it wasn't a problem of national security, but the President AND both houses of Congress agreed that it WAS a problem of national security. On the world scale, the diplomatic scale, it was the position of the US that it WAS a problem of national security.
What do other nations do at that point? We said, basically, "We have a gun pointed at us, and we want the OK to go remove it." An ally of the US would say "We don't like the idea of using force, so we won't help you; but since you think it's a serious problem, we won't stand in your way."
Instead, they basically said "We know about the gun, but we don't think it's loaded. We know you have evidence that it is, but we figure as long as we're looking at the gun it's not going to go off."
Oh yes, and in the back room, the guy with the gun was making outrageous deals with the naysayers... to basically give them the wealth of the country, as long as he controlled it.
|