Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
because Saddam is a murderous bastard that deserves to die, and because he refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspections for over 12 years. Call me a crazy right-winger (you'd be wrong, by the way), but tell me why the US *shouldn't* invade a country to remove such a regime? How on earth can you justify not doing anything by pointing at international law, and then claim that the party that does decide to invade is evil?
|
Why should the US not invade?
Because we are not the world's police force. We may be the self-appointed "Superpower", but several nations opposed our actions who were on the UN Security Council.
Technically, we began a unilateral action to enforce UN resolutions without consent of the ruling body, the UN.
How can I justify not doing anything by pointing at International Law?
Without the Law or UN to support our actions, aren't we criminals.
Quote:
|
I believe everyone has a right to invade nations they don't trust with WMDs if their leaders are as evil as Saddam is. Yes, that includes the US. If anyone has the balls to invade the US over their WMDs (and succeeds), they are welcome to make a deck of cards with the US' leader's faces. In fact, if the US ever turns into an evil dictatorship, with the government killing millions of it's own people for thinking bad things, then I'll applaud anyone that goes in to liberate the US people, with or without UN approval.
|
Careful, China might be listening and your giving them ideas.
Based on this same belief of justifiable unilateral invasion, we should be invading North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Cuba to name just a few.
Quote:
|
Noriega was a bastard that deserves his punishment. Saddam will be even worse - I hope the US gets him alive. I'd love to see an Iraqi mob tear the bastard to pieces. Okay, that's a bit excessive, but you get the picture - he deserves to be punished for what he did.
|
Noriega was a US created puppet leader that was installed into power so the US could control the Panama Canal. When he threatened to not let the US use the Canal anymore, he was suddenly a threat to US National Security and promptly removed.
Saddam is also a US created puppet leader that was installed to start a war with Iran as retaliation for the US Embassy Hostage situation.
When Saddam was no longer cooperative with the needs of the US, his paycheck was cutoff. In return, Saddam decided if the US wouldn't pay him anymore, he'd get the money from Kuwait and you know the rest of the story.
The two Bush administrations paint Saddam as an evil man. Could he just be a puppet who no longer serves the master?