Quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
we suplied the means to create the Agents, there for we gave him the WMD, i dont see how you are trying to say we did not give them the WMD.
|
I am not saying the US didn't give Iraq WMDs. I am saying that many other countries gave Iraq WMDs too, and that the US was only a small supplier.
Somehow, many people seem to "forget" about the other countries, and turn the whole situation into a scenario where the US gave Saddam *all* his WMDs. This is then used in discussions to somehow make it seem less evil of Saddam to have used them: after all, the US supplied them, therefore the US is the bad guy...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
what do you mean no international laws, are you like the Bush administration and forgeting about the UN, they have Tons of international laws. 2 of which the administration broke by attacking Iraq
|
Yes we have the UN, but the UN is not the sole arbitrator of international law. There are tons of laws indeed, but many of them conflict with other laws, or are so vague that anyone can use them for their own ends.
The whole 1441 discussion is a perfect example: what are "serious consequences"? Any reasonable person must at least admit that war is a serious consequence; therefore 1441 allows war. That is the letter of the law for you.
The spirit of the law might say that in 1991, Saddam pledged to give up his WMDs, and in 2003, he still hadn't fully complied; this situation was made worse by sanctions, which were taking a terrible toll on his population, but didn't weaken Saddam's regime at all (hence the news now about the "sea of oil" Iraq floats on, which makes sanctions useless.)
Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Dragonlich
...
Was it wrong? Does the 'selective policeman' argument stand up? Again, my answer to the first and (to some degree) second question is Yes.
@ I believe it was wrong because it defied the UN in an act of raw American power and international vigilante justice. There were other options open that would have saved the thousands of lives that the war took and would have supported rather than undermined the good work of the UN. The justification given by the coalition (and the only legally acceptable one) was that there was an imminent (45 minutes, said Blair) threat to the security of the world. We are now seeing that that was probably nonsense.
@ As for the 'selective policeman' I have two points. Firstly, America is not an international policeman, it is an international citizen and therefore any justice it enacts will be vigilante justice. Secondly, if a policeman consistently shows a selectivity in which criminals they pursue and which they do not, then one must ask whether the policeman is not acting from alterior motives and is abusing their power.
2) Yes they held WMDs once and yes they were being evasive about compliance with a UN resolution. The same applies to Israel and a whole host of nations. "Reasonable assumptions" are not enough to wage war and sacrifice thousands of lives. You need evidence.
...
4) How long do we wait? Three months, six months, a year, five years? I have no doubt that given long enough they will "find" something in Iraq. But remember that you and I were told that there was a serious, imminent threat to our national security and that is why we had to, and legally could, risk our troops lives invading another country. How serious a threat could it have been to have left so little trace? Yes, I know. Iraq is bigger than France. But note that weapons inspectors can detect particles at the nanogram level. To paraphrase the words of one inspector, "if WMDs have ever been here, we'll know about it". And still we are turning up nothing but three dodgy trucks.
|
Was it wrong? It defied the UN, which was obviously (to me) a bunch of bickering politicians, all looking at their own agendas, and all interested in maintaining the status-quo, which was not acceptable to the US. Other options were tried since '91, and had failed - Saddam would not have left, leaving his citizens in the same situation they were in before. Again: removing a dictator is GOOD, no matter how you twist and turn it.
The policeman: if the US is not the policeman, who is? The UN? They have shown themselves to be a policeman unable to deal with any criminals at all. They aren't the police either. Someone has to stand up and *do* something once in a while, because the UN certainly wasn't doing anything in this instance. Let's say there is *no* policeman at all, and we're all at the mercy of other countries, some of which are on our side, while others are not.
WMDs: don't drag Israel into this discussion, because they have nothing to do with it. Iraq was asked to disarm, and *prove* it in the '91 cease-fire agreements. They did not do so, and thus the US was justified in attacking. Furthermore, sacrificing thousands of lives to save millions of other lives is a reasonable choice, especially if there were no other ways of removing Saddam from power. Why would *we* need to proof anything at all when Iraq clearly didn't proof their side of the story? Technically speaking, Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire agreements, and therefore Iraq restarted the war...
Time to wait: How long would we have waited for UN inspectors to find things? If Hans Blix and friends (who did some great work, by the way) had been allowed to continue their search, the end result would likely have been the same as before. Iraq would have claimed they had cooperated, while the inspectors had reasonable doubts. This would have dragged on forever. Oh, and inspectors may be able to detect particles, but not when those particles are hundreds of miles away from their location because they simply don't know where to look...
Besides, are you suggesting that US soldier's lives may only be risked if the US is directly threatened militarily? I could explain the whole oil issue, with Iraq right in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth, on top of one of the largest stockpiles of essential resources in the world... But I'll just point at the millions of Iraqis that will now be able to lead their lives in the knowledge they won't be executed by Saddam's thugs; isn't that worth dying for? Are you so egotistical that you'd deny these people their freedom over technicalities? That line of reasoning would have prevented you from joining in the two world wars, and would have left the Korean people at the mercy of the communists... gee, thanks.