Well letting the UN do it's job. determining if he was a threat, then invading with UN support and NOT violating international law.
The United Nations was perfectly content to sanction George Bush’s decision to marshal up to one hundred thousand American soldiers into the region, suggesting that they should remain on-site for an indefinite period of time – with threats of al-Qaeda activity floating over their heads no less – in order to provide a suitably compelling component to their inspections régime. That’s while Hans Blix was unearthing such clear circumvention and violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions as the al-Samoud missiles and aluminum centrifuges imported illegally from India.
I find one thing to be a bit ironic. If a nation has WMD and supports US interests, do we invvade? No. If they dont...Watch out!
Are you implying that we should grant Iraq the same privilege of being able to amass a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction merely because we don’t enforce total disarmament as a blanket policy? Are you aware of how massive – nay, impossible - an undertaking attempting to fully part Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, or North Korea of their weapons stockpiles would inevitably be? Are you attempting to imply that any of these countries (
sans North Korea) is as great a threat to the United States as Iraq?
Isreal...the 16th wealthiest nation recieves 1/3 of our foriegn aid, and what does the government do? Bulldoze peoples homes, and occupy towns...oh and kill children for throwing rocks at tanks. IIRC(could be mistaken) and they have used political assasinations...something the US has not used for a long time. But they support the US....so we give them money and weapons.
The government bulldozes peoples’ homes because they’re used as sniper’s holdouts. While Israel’s behavior is reprehensible, it is at least understandable. Not to mention Ariel Sharon’s recent decision to at least pander to Washington’s new “Road Map for Peace” – all while Yasser Arafat continues to insist that only he can put forth policy for a government from which he has been more or less side-lined even by elements from within.
The United States has unofficially turned to political assassination on numerous occasions, particularly during the so-called “Kissinger era.” Successive American presidents sought during the Cold War to eliminate Fidel Castro while the United States also sought to kill Mumar al-Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein via missile strikes between 1980 and 2000.
And the weapons sent to Israel are often deployed in a manner that brings back valuable field data for the United States military. Namely in the form of the THEL laser-defense system, Arrow air-defense platform, Land Warrior combat kit, and successive variants of the M16 combat rifle.
As for the “rocks vs. tanks” analogy, it’s more like rocks vs. guns. Have you ever seen what a blunt object the size of a human fist and half the weight of a bowling ball can do to a human face? Or an object one-quarter that weight launched from a reinforced slingshot? Now I’m not defending Israel on all counts – certainly I think their soldiers could be accused of “trigger-happiness” on many occasions. But that’s not to say the Palestinians don’t invite it themselves from time to time.
And now on to Vympel …
Complete falsehood. I'm sure you enjoyed the 'oil-for-palaces' jokes, but they were quite untrue- all oil for food program money went straight into a UN account, Iraq couldn't touch a cent of it without the UN approving the purchase. The food-aid distribution system in Iraq was actually quite efficient.
EDIT: Unfortunately, the draconian 'fuck the masses' sanctions *did* have the effect of reducing quality of life.
Oh, and btw, before anyone brings up the "if he had complied with UN resolutions, we would've lifted the sanctions" falsehood- it is just that- false. US officials repeatedly stated publicly that sanctions would remain in place regardless of what Saddam did, until he was out of power.
New York’s Newsday was actually reporting last week that Saddam seized medicines meant for the Iraqi people and sold them on the black market as a regular economic ploy. That money went directly to finance personal expenditures and military spending rather than medical care.
I never understood why the sanctions weren't just on military items.
Three reasons:
(A) As you said, it was initially assumed that the Baathists “gave a fuck.”
(B) The carrot/stick approach. By making sanctions contingent on Hussein’s fall, we gave the people an incentive to rebel on their own.
(C) Various items without actual military uses can always be later turned into weapons components. Aluminum rods, for instance.
No. The UN never specifically authorized them. The US/UK cited a vague UN resolution to claim authorization for them, but noone in the UNSC bought it-not even the US/UK- otherwise they would've claimed such as a material breach.
You mean the same No-Fly Zones that prevented Hussein from carrying out vicious atrocities against large portions of his own population – specifically the Kurds?
Because every member of the UN agreed to as such, by signing the UN Charter. International legality in terms of these matters relies solely in the jurisdiction of the UN.
International legality be damned. These “precedents” you speak of do not exist. We encouraged no one to follow “our lead.” Not that they could or would do so without severe consequences anyway.
The President of the United States of America – or any other Chief of State – has an obligation all his own to meet specific national security threats whether or not foreign governments agree.
