Saddam Hussein made a unilateral decision to invade Kuwait, then did so, in rather unilateral fashion.
Do you agree with that statement?
Yes
If so, then do you agree with him, that he had the right to do this unilaterally?
No. He didn't have the right to invade Kuwait unilaterally, but the unilateral part of the equation isn't important. He didn't have the right to do so bilaterally or multilaterally.
i'm not too sure exactly where the dividing line is between these two situations Tim, but i do expect it to be somewhere between .... the time of one nation's invasion of another being considered acceptable conduct is long past
It depends on the reason and legitimate justifications. America's invasion of Germany and Japan during WWII, and our invasion of North Korea during the Korea, where clearly justified. The justification for Iraq may be not quite as solid as those but since Iraq invaded Kuwait, fought the US, and then violated the cease fire agreement a strong argument can be made that the invasion was justified on technical qusi-legal grounds. The other type of justification is the practical one, the idea that Iraq and the world are better off with Hussien. Some would dispute this saying that the invasion will cause horrible consequences but I personally don't think they will be worse then Saddam.
it behooves a self-styled 'democracy' to behave in more civilised democratic fashion, and form a genuine coalition, a quorum of democracies to do such things if as and when they are found to be necessary
If the invasion was wrong then its would still be wrong if every country in the UN but Iraq voted for it. Popular doesn't mean right, unpopular doesn't mean wrong.
Tim |
