Wow!! I agree with you in one post, but then find myself absolutely disagreeing with you in this one.
It's important for international relations that countries know that if they keep their feces within their own border,
Interesting analogy.. But as you know, no one can stop the wind and the pervasive smell always drops property values and attacts rats and riff-raff. And besides, people like this are generally psychopathic or sociopathic and the next thing you know they'll be trying to drive you out of the neighborhood so they can stack their feces in YOUR yard.
launching an unprovoked, (or in this case insufficiently provoked), attack upon another state.
What's the level for "sufficiency"?? I opine that it all depends on what you perceive as being the potential threat, versus the current one. We've "contained" Saddam for 12 years, yet he failed to abide by UNSCOM inspection mandates and eventually kicked the inspectors out when they got too close to finding the "family jewels" in his WMDs treasure.
The guy has violated the terms of the armistice. That, in itself, is justification UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, to continue the war and overthrow him, or force him to comply with the terms of the original armistice.
This is not illegal.. What it's really about is whether anyone wants to enforce the armistice or merely ignore him.
The guy has been nothing but intransigent towards the norms of international relations and the accords governing relations between states. Thus, I hardly see why he should enjoy the protection of international protocols that he neither acknowledges, nor supports (except when they benefit him).
With the world's only superpower appearing to be out of control
That's EXACTLY what is needed in order to prevent Saddam from being able to "calculate" his way out of this via our predictability. He has to understand that, despite all the hollow warnings of the past, this time we actually might mean it. And recall that, while Carter could not obtain the release of our hostages from Iran, the day Reagan entered office, those hostages were on their way home. They Iranian KNEW he was not someone to trifle with, let alone try to predict.
It would be a better world if those nations could, like Kuwait, instead rely on the US to show up to put the aggressors back across their borders.
Actually, it would be better when the US (and other nations) were required to "show up" that we REMOVED the source of aggression, rather than just slapping his wrists and "grounding him for life". After all, how many of us were "grounded" but snuck out anyway seeking to defy our parents and do what we want?
The US has a strong tendency to make diplomacy personal. In short, it's Saddam's history.
Gee Carl.. You seem to imply that the Iraqi people actually had a choice in Saddam's "election".. Well, I guess they did actually... "vote for me or we'll kill your family"..
Yeah.. I can see why you believe we shouldn't focus on Saddam as the ABSOLUTE ruler of this state (so long as no underboss will risk betraying him).
The Iraqi regime is dictatorial in the left leaning (i.e. socialist / communist theory) rather than right leaning.
Ah..hmmm... You might recall that in Hitler's Germany, Nazi translated as "National Socialist Party".
I know it's a fine point, but they can call themselves whatever they want, but few "socialist" states actually live up to their stated ideals. They all become totalitarian and brutal.
Baathism is a mixture of Fascism, Nationalism, Socialism, and whatever else its members seem to find pertinent. But all of their "high ideals" were superseded by their required absolute loyalty to Saddam Hussein's cult of personality.
jajz-ed.org.il (You should read this)
Hawk |
