Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
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.
|
Only international law applies, our laws in the US do not apply to Iraq, we cannot just push our way of life onto them. The only laws that can rationally apply are those that are set up by the world as a whole (the UN) not but the US
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
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.)
|
Series consequences could mean heavy sanctions, ostracizing them as a country, and sending in UN forces to distribute AID instead of just delivering it to the Iraq Government.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
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.
|
Just as the LAPD has no jurisdiction in Sweden, we have no Jurisdiction in the World. An LAPD officer cannot shoot a criminal in Sweden with out suffering the consequences of that action.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
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...
|
Iraq's cease-fire was with the UN, they were not at war with us, yes Iraq did break the cease fire but it is the UN who has juristiction over that, Not the US. further if we Knew where the weapons were why could we not just bomb them as we did in 98 and if we know where they are why cant we find them at all
Quote:
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
[B]
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...
|
if we realy wanted to we could search iraq and find every weapon if they realy did exist, we have the tecnology we did not have the man power to do it. if we would have put more inspectors on the ground and had constant over flights we could sniff anything out. further even if we could not find them, having constant searches would divert any attention to making them to hiding them if they are hidden they can not be used.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
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.
|
What the hell do you mean it would have left us out of the 2 world wars?
Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?
Because you probably haven’t ill explain them to you.
First, the Zimmerman telegram:
This was a telegram from Germany to Mexico, stating that if Mexico was to attack the US, to keep the US out of the war, Germany would give a portion of the US to Mexico when they conquered it this was intercepted and was one of the main reasons for going to war with Germany (Mexico did not go with the plan)
Second, Pearl Harbor:
The Japanese attacked us. we were blindsided (not really) and were bombed into joining the war
Both wars also fall into 2 of the 3 reasons that a country may go to war with another legally (UN not formed yet I know)
The Zimmerman telegram was an imminent threat to our Sovereignty and Pearl Harbor was a direct attack.