Quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
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
|
That would be cool, if those international laws were clear and unequivocal. They are not.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, but serious consequences can *also* mean going to war, removing the regime and installing a new one. (I also doubt your version would work - the sanctions are useless, the ostracizing doesn't seem to work, and sending in the UN will only get them slaughtered...)
Quote:
|
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.
|
The world isn't as simple as that. There is no world policeman that actually does something, and countries are not people. Just as an example: Who will "arrest" the US for attacking Iraq?
Quote:
|
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 jurisdiction 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
|
The US is part of the UN, and was the main party in the '91 coalition. They most certainly do have jurisdiction over the cease fire. And the US did *not* know exactly where the weapons were, and couldn't bomb them if they did. That would have been an act of war, which wasn't allowed by the UN, was it? Clinton did the same in '98, but apparently that was different. Clinton even launched a similar air-strikes-only war in Kosovo, which also was illegal, according to 4thTimeLucky. So, sorry, can't do that, sir.
Quote:
|
if we really wanted to we could search Iraq and find every weapon if they really did exist, we have the technology 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.
|
It doesn't work that way. Iraq didn't cooperate with the inspections, and certainly would not have agreed to massive numbers of inspectors and constant over-flights. In theory it might sound nice, but in practice it wouldn't have happened. That's basically the end of that story; please stick to realistic options.
Quote:
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.
|
Actually, I did know about both events, and probably know more about them than you think. Hell, I might even know more about them than you. (/showing off mode)
The Zimmerman telegram was the *official* reason; the last straw. It was a big mistake of the Germans to send it, but wasn't that big a deal to anyone. It also wasn't a declaration of war on the US.
Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans (duh!). It was only because the Germans declared war on the US that you attacked them; had they not done so, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Roosevelt to join the war in Europe.
Anyway... neither of these really matter. The point I was making was this: If legal technicalities about international law are more important than saving human lives and spreading democracy and freedom, then you would have been much more reluctant to fight either of these wars, even if they had been pushed upon you. (In this particular case, the Iraqi people don't seem to matter at all - all that matters is the legal wrangling about proof and international law. Oh, and if people do admit that the people matter, they always point at other countries that aren't liberated... damned if you do, damned if you don't.)
Just an example of technicalities: in WW1, Mexico could *never* have successfully attacked the US, so why would you go to war over such a silly telegram, which might even be false? Can you prove that the Germans actually send the thing, or might it have been a US conspiracy? The Lusitania was sunk by German submarines, which might have been a reason to fight, were it not for the fact that the ship was (secretly) used to transport weapons... These technicalities and doubts would have been enough to keep you out of the war.