Iraq was fought because the US was fed up with being required to contain Saddam's government while every other state in the region was undermining those efforts (violating the sanctions).
Well, that's the official reason anyway: and that's why I'm arguing with those justifying invasion by saying that Saddam supported terrorists and that's why we went in.
It was fought on the basis that there were strong indications that Saddam was continuing to violate the cease fire agreement (mobile biological laboratories are a violation).
Yep, two trailers of uncertain purpose and no proven (or even asserted) actual use look like an imminent threat to world security to me. Such an obvious danger to the US.
They surely justify the massing of 150K troops, the invasion and overthrow of a ruler we happened not to like, etc etc etc...
GWBushJr. didn't go to the UN to claim that we should overthrow Saddam based solely upon terrorism.
No, this was one of the post hoc rationalisations offered here. See first para.
Thanks for the info on 242/Chapter VI/VII, I honestly didn't know this [I don't browse the charter, no... vita brevis and all that].
Have there never been any binding resolutions on Israel/Palestine passed then? Why is that - US veto, USSR veto, or just never tried?
I guess you feel no obligation towards ending the authoritarian corruption in that region? Did you favor maintaining dictatorships in Latin America as well??
On the contrary, I was delighted when Pinochet was arraigned and furious when we let him go. You meant this dictator, of course?
Somoza, the Duvaliers, the Argentine junta... yep, worthies all.
Actually I don't quite follow this point... the US record of intervention in America is not exactly removing dictators. Except the ones no longer on its payroll... or who can't be bought... invading Belize on behalf of a fruit company and a tax-dodging Tory billionaire (Ashcroft - owns ADT, sold to Tyco) was particularly choice.
The region needs to be politically reshuffled.
Ah, the White Man's Burden. Just beware those 'lesser breeds'.
For one, there's no way the US will be involved in annexing Iraqi oil. But let's say we entertain your dysfunctional logic, let me ask this question...
From whom have we annexed the oil??
From Saddam, obviously. And passed it on to the private vehicles of a few key Cheneyites to enrich them. Oh, not as vulgarly as simply giving them title... just the rights to exploit it, and choose who works where...
And to be quite frank, there are many other countries around the world that could use some regime change.. Governments that are butchering and oppressing their people
on a daily basis... (Congo?, Liberia?)
But in those cases we lack the legal pretext through the UN.
We've got it, in the Congo. Where's the US? they alone have this level of military power, that's been so clearly deomonstrated.
And can you see anyone vetoing or even many opposing it if the US/UK, from true humanitarian motives, went to the UN and offered to change these regimes, put down the wars, and build proper new states? In countries without oil, so our motive would clearly not be private profit? in countries not named in the PNAC agenda, not strategically important as army bases and regional power centres? in countries not targeted by Israel?
I agree, we have no such "obligation". But absolutely if we proposed that, I'd support it; probably wincing at the cost, but I would. And if we had this track record of honest intervention for humanitarian aims, I'd believe it in Iraq. But don't tell me we're humanitarians in there now. It simply doesn't ring true.
Afraid I'm pushed for time, so can't be more detailed... later perhaps. |
