WMD have been used for millenia, but international law banning their use is fairly recent
Which "international law" are you talking about?
the issue was the difference between the invansion of Iraq and other US invasions of "undesirable dictatorial republics" in the past 20 years or so
I am sorry, but I don't get your reasoning for why a consideration of US invasions of other countries should also be limited to a maximum of twenty years.
And what is an "undesirable dictatorial republic", do you think? Is there a "desirable" variety?
Anyway, I believe that issue was raised to point out the LACK OF such invasions - so many bloody dictators, so little invasions, in other words. Why do you think that is?
Pinochet in Chile - overthrowed the democratically elected Allende with US help and approval. Loads of people in Chile were subsequently tortured, killed, had to flee the country, etc.
Saddam in Iraq - He was a "good guy" then, supported against the religious nuts in Iran, buddies with US administration even after he gassed the Kurds. Why do you think US did not invade Iraq when Saddam was at his homicidal best, gassing his own people?
And what about that guy with the bad wig in Pakistan, the general who seized power, who is buddies with the US at this day and age? Where is the love of democracy there?
Now, do you know of any uses which fit the conditions I laid out in my post?
Not sure why your "conditions", handpicked from the Iraqi situation, need to be satisfied for a dictator to be considered dangerous to his own people and to the world, and hence taken out. |
