...in the 1920s and 30s, the League of Nations, established by America (but without America's support) attempted to stop a repeat of the First World War. However, this failed as nations ignored the League's attempts of appeasement.
I've read and re-read these sentences, but I'm at a loss to determine how you interpret them to support your position regarding Iraq.
For those of you following along without a dictionary, "appeasement" means "making concessions to avoid a fight".
First, let's get the history straight. The League of Nations was proposed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as part of his "Fourteen Points" peace plan to end the World War. Wilson worked with the leaders of the allies to establish the League. The U.S. Senate, however, rejected the treaty and prevented U.S. participation.
In 1932, the League condemned Japan for invading Manchuria, but the League did not use its "collective security" clause to forcibly oppose the Japanese. In 1935, the League condemned Italy as an aggressor for invading Ethiopia, and approved sanctions to punish Italy. These sanctions had no teeth, however, because fundamental war materials, such as steel and oil, were exempt. Japan and Italy discovered that the League was impotent.
The League was really out of the picture during the height of the appeasement process. This was the policy followed by the French and British governments in the late 1930s to avoid war with Germany. In 1936, Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland. In 1938, Hitler annexed Austria. There were protestations and hand-wringing, but no one attempted to use force to stop the Germans. The French and British governments even sacrificed Czechoslovakia to appease Germany. Each concession emboldened Hitler to demand more. And France and Great Britain frittered away the time, allowing the Germans to re-arm, allowing Hitler to make secret pacts with Stalin, and allowing their zeal for peace to plunge them into war.
So, how do you relate this to the Iraq war? Are you suggesting that the U.S. undermined the UN's attempts to appease Saddam Hussein? I'll agree with you on that. For over a decade, Hussein stalled and prevaricated. Hussein discovered that the UN could be played for suckers, so he had no incentive to cooperate. The U.S. did for Iraq what the French should have done for Germany in 1936.
Then again, maybe I misunderstood your analogy. Are you suggesting that the U.S. undermined the UN by being an aggressor (like Japan, Italy, and Germany in the 1930s). Okay, let's consider that. If that's the case, why didn't France, Germany, and Russia introduce a Security Council resolution condemning the U.S. (and U.K., Austrialian, Polish, Spanish, etc.) aggression against Iraq? Furthermore, why didn't they send their troops to defend Iraq? Seems to me they are the one's undermining the UN, since they aren't opposing aggression.
You seem to be very good at pointing out the mistakes made by President Bush, but what if the intelligence was right and he took no action? Would you have praised Bush for his restraint if al-Qaeda had acquired biological agents from Hussein and released them in Orlando or Tel Aviv or Sydney?