This clarifies my sentiments pretty well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Dont get me wrong. Hussien needed to be removed. but not in the way we did it.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/columns/ ... st-war.htm


The war against Iraq is over, and it is time to pause to reflect about a few points that seem to have been lost in the shuffle, as well as a few new issues that are already emerging in the aftermath.
First and foremost, I have heard plenty of people ridiculing the antiwar movement reckoning that, after all, there were very few casualties (on the American side, that is), and that everything went smoothly. This irritatingly misses the point of the antiwar sentiment. Just because things went according to US plans, that doesn’t make it right from an ethical perspective, unless one is ready to accept the Machiavellian position that the end justifies the means. Even then, one can still ask if the end is a good one to begin with.

And here is where another common misunderstanding of the peace movement comes about. In that movement nobody ever defended Saddam Hussein. Nobody in his right mind thinks that having an Hussein-like regime anywhere in the world is a good idea. But remember that removing dictators, or even aiding democracy, has never been a real goal of American foreign policy, despite the rhetoric. The US has put plenty of dictators in power when it was convenient for it to do so, even at the cost of overthrowing democratically elected governments (the case of Chile, the murder of its elected president, Salvador Allende, and the ensuing pro-American dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet come to mind).

No, the only real goal of US foreign policy has always been the goal of any nation’s foreign policy: “national interest.” The trouble is, national interest in this case was defended with the idea that it was justified for the US to wage a war of preemptive action against an hostile government prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. Besides the obvious question of why not applying the same logic to countries that really have been threatening the United States, and that really do have weapons of mass destruction (Korea comes to mind), the fact is that -- so far -- no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, not even after American troops have taken complete control of the country. Now, this is an empirical matter, and it may turn out that such weapons do in fact exist, but even Bush doesn’t seem so sure anymore (was he ever?). Very recently he said that it is possible that the Iraqis destroyed the weapons during the war! Why on earth would they do that? Indeed, why did they not use such weapons against the invading American and British armies? What is it good for to have weapons of mass destruction if you don’t use them as a last resort to defend yourself? What did Saddam Hussein have to lose by holding back?

Other interesting things are emerging during the aftermath. The anti-American sentiment is already running high among Iraqis, which -- quite understandably -- are asking themselves why don’t the “liberators” go away now that their job of liberating them has been done (perhaps because that wasn’t what the liberators set out to do?). In fact, the US is now complaining that Iran is allegedly attempting to “interfere” with the “internal politics” of Iraq, something that the US cannot and will not allow! I wonder if anybody in the Bush administration even gets the irony of such position. I guess a full scale invasion of another country doesn’t count as “interference” with that country’s internal politics.

What was wrong with the war on Iraq (and with the possibility of others against Iran, Syria, and Korea, to mention but a few of the other countries that have been casually threatened by one or the other of Bush’s officials during the past few weeks) is not that we should condone or protect the dictatorships or repressive regimes of those countries. It is that no other country has the right to act as a self-appointed policeman, circumventing the due process of international law as established by the United Nations. Yes, of course the UN is slow, bureaucratic, and often impotent. But that impotence is largely the fault of the United States, which keeps using the UN whenever convenient, and undermining its authority or cutting its funding whenever the rest of the world doesn’t want to follow what the American government decides to do. Not always been able to get one’s way is the obvious price of democracy, but the self-declared best democracy in the world doesn’t want to pay that price.

Let me try to clarify the problem with an analogy. We have all seen movies in which the police can’t do anything to stop a criminal because of the due process of law and its many loopholes and slowdowns. In those movies, there usually is a hero who finally takes things in his (it’s normally a male) hands and simply gets the job done, and we all cheer. But in real life, we don’t want vigilantes to roam our cities, we prefer the slow and inefficient machine of public justice, and in fact we insist in putting strict limits to that as well. Why? Because once you bypass laws, the only rule is that of might makes right. Today perhaps this may appear acceptable because it happens to be a democratic country that is able to play bully. But what if (when?) the cards on the table will change? Who is going to protect the world from a vigilante out of control? That is why the war on Iraq was and remains wrong.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dont get me wrong. Hussien needed to be removed. but not in the way we did it.

Do you have a viable alternative plan that doesn’t involve waiting for him to die of old age?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Dont get me wrong. Hussien needed to be removed. but not in the way we did it.

Do you have a viable alternative plan that doesn’t involve waiting for him to die of old age?

Well letting the UN do it's job. determining if he was a threat, then invading with UN support and NOT violating international law.

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!

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.

Just an example of the irony of that situation.

[MKSheppard]

OK then, Denriale, I'll raise a battery of ATACMS missiles firing on your
position from 100km away against your hippie "Kumbaya if we ignore the
problem it will go away!"

[Sea Skimmer]

Well letting the UN do it's job. determining if he was a threat, then invading with UN support and NOT violating international law.

Note: A nation which you exchange fire with on a daily basis is generally called a threat. When such is happening the situation is generally know as "war"

We had all the resolutions we needed to invade. And look what happened afterwards, the UN voted to go along with the US controlled plan to rebuild as well. Kind of shoots thewhole illegal war and occupation angle right in the foot.

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!

If they support US interests and not shooting as us every damn day then they might not be a threat.

Isreal... snip attempt to change the subject

[Alyrium Denryle]

OK then, Denriale, I'll raise a battery of ATACMS missiles firing on your
position from 100km away against your hippie "Kumbaya if we ignore the
problem it will go away!"

<Snip>

Did I ever say ignore the problem? No...Again the vigilante analogy comes up. The UN may not get things done by our arbitrarily drawn deadlines, but it does work.

Also, a burden of proof fallacy comes to mind. The same type of argument that we would all slam a creationist for have been used by the bush admin to justify invading iraq. Fuck, we tossed OUR OWN LEGAL SYSTEM out the window by insisting that Saddam prove his innocence. That was not right.

What we should have done, was collect evidence(oh wait we didnt let the inspectors do that) and go through international due process just like everyone else. THEN we could have nvaded and avoided this whole international mess.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well letting the UN do it's job. determining if he was a threat, then invading with UN support and NOT violating international law.

Note: A nation which you exchange fire with on a daily basis is generally called a threat. When such is happening the situation is generally know as "war"

This I was unaware of. I was refering to a threat of national security... Such as the WMD that they alledgedly have.

We had all the resolutions we needed to invade. And look what happened afterwards, the UN voted to go along with the US controlled plan to rebuild as well. Kind of shoots thewhole illegal war and occupation angle right in the foot.

Rebuilding a nation is not the same as a war. And certain countries seem to disagree with that sentiment. We did not hve the support of the UN for the purposes of an invasion, and the issue of taking military action IIRC was never voted on.

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!

If they support US interests and not shooting as us every damn day then they might not be a threat.

Again, I was refering to the threat of WMD being used against US targets.

Isreal... snip attempt to change the subject

simply trying to illustrate the irony in US policy.

[Montcalm]

There was no other way,the UN condemn Saddam`s action they put embargos,and what good did that do nothing.

[Col. Crackpot]

The UN may not get things done by our arbitrarily drawn deadlines, but it does work.

are you on drugs? When has the UN gotten anything significant done? We did things the UN way in 1991, look what it accomplished! 12 years of decline in the quality of life in Iraq, while Saddam kept on building palaces and spending his oil for food money on gold encrusted ivory dildoes for his harem.

[Vympel]

We had all the resolutions we needed to invade.

No, they didn't. You find me a single resolution that gives said authorization for regime change. This has been gone over at least a few times on the board, in detail.

And look what happened afterwards, the UN voted to go along with the US controlled plan to rebuild as well. Kind of shoots thewhole illegal war and occupation angle right in the foot.

Not at all. Just because the UN voted to lift sanctions etc doesn't make approval for the war retroactive.

If they support US interests and not shooting as us every damn day then they might not be a threat.

Considering your were patrolling *their* airspace when they were shooting at you, that's kinda lame- especially considering that the stated cover story for said zones, 'protect the Sh'ites and Kurds' was a complete farce- with the no fly zones shut down at Turkish request so they could go kill Kurds, for instance.

[Vympel]

12 years of decline in the quality of life in Iraq, while Saddam kept on building palaces and spending his oil for food money on gold encrusted ivory dildoes for his harem.

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.

[Col. Crackpot]

12 years of decline in the quality of life in Iraq, while Saddam kept on building palaces and spending his oil for food money on gold encrusted ivory dildoes for his harem.

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.

then where the fuck did all of the palaces come from? Saddam continued to build palaces after '91...hell he built dozens more. where did the hundreds of millions (or possibly even billions) of dollars stashed around baghdad come from? What, was he selling Amway and Tupperware on the side?

[Vympel]

then where the fuck did all of the palaces come from? Saddam continued to build palaces after '91...hell he built dozens more.

Source please?

where did the hundreds of millions (or possibly even billions) of dollars stashed around baghdad come from? What, was he selling Amway and Tupperware on the side?

Whoever said Iraq was stone broke? Don't you get it? The Iraqi people got enough *food*. If Iraq had been allowed to purhcase whatever products it wanted, it could've done so.

[Thirdfain]

You know, Vympel is absolutly right. The sanctions were a waste of time, because they assumed that the Baathists gave a flying shit about their people, and would make changes to benefit the general populace.

This was obviously not true, so the embargo was inneffective. We should have finished the job back in 91', and saved a few lives.

[Vympel]

You know, Vympel is absolutly right. The sanctions were a waste of time, because they assumed that the Baathists gave a flying shit about their people, and would make changes to benefit the general populace.

1: If the US gave a flying shit, why did they prohibit Iraq from importing water treatment equipment- a source of much death and disease over the past decade?

"One document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," dated January 22, 1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It begins, "Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." The document later continues, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements"

This was obviously not true, so the embargo was inneffective.

The embargo was *very* effective. In fucking up the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food program kept the population treading water, but the sanctions prevented any progress back to pre-war standards of living.

I never understood why the sanctions weren't just on military items.

[Zoink]

You know, Vympel is absolutly right. The sanctions were a waste of time, because they assumed that the Baathists gave a flying shit about their people, and would make changes to benefit the general populace.

France said that I long time ago, but nobody listened.

[BoredShirtless]

Well letting the UN do it's job. determining if he was a threat, then invading with UN support and NOT violating international law.

Note: A nation which you exchange fire with on a daily basis is generally called a threat.

You however created and fed the "threat". Stop acting like a vigilante [enforcing illegal no-fly zones], no more threat.

When such is happening the situation is generally know as "war"

It's cute how you try to generalise a real situation, saves you the effort of a proper discussion doesn't it? Well just to clear things up for you, it wasn't war. It was the US and British enforcing illegal no-fly zones.

We had all the resolutions we needed to invade.

You did huh? Can you list the resolutions which authorizes an invasion of Iraq? Something else a little confusing with your statement: if you had the resolutions, why go back to the UN for more?

And look what happened afterwards, the UN voted to go along with the US controlled plan to rebuild as well. Kind of shoots thewhole illegal war and occupation angle right in the foot.

By your logic, a bystander in a bank robbery not resisting the armed holdup invalidates the crime. Get real.

[Thirdfain]

You however created and fed the "threat". Stop acting like a vigilante [enforcing illegal no-fly zones], no more threat.

You think that ceasing to enforce the no-fly zones would have stopped Saddam from being dangerous? Explain your logic.

By your logic, a bystander in a bank robbery not resisting the armed holdup invalidates the crime. Get real.

No, by his logic, a bystander helping the robbers load up the truck afterwords means that the Bystander doesn't oppose the crime (or maybe just wants in on the spoils.)

Explain why the UN is somehow better able to decide whether something is "Legal" or not. The UN gives IRAN the same standing as Germany! It is a farce, an attempt to make all nations equl, when all nations blatantly are not.

[RogueIce]

You however created and fed the "threat". Stop acting like a vigilante [enforcing illegal no-fly zones], no more threat.

IIRC, weren't the No Fly Zones from the UN? If they were, then how does that make them illegal? And if it is from the UN and you say it's illegal anyway, then what's the point in going to the UN in the first place?

If the No Fly Zones weren't from the UN, then it doesn't matter. Anyone remember better?

[Vympel]

IIRC, weren't the No Fly Zones from the UN?

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.

[Vympel]

You think that ceasing to enforce the no-fly zones would have stopped Saddam from being dangerous? Explain your logic.

The claim was that Iraq was a threat because Iraq was firing at US/UK aircrafft over it's own territory. That's creating the threat to your own forces.

No, by his logic, a bystander helping the robbers load up the truck afterwords means that the Bystander doesn't oppose the crime (or maybe just wants in on the spoils.)

Are you suggesting that the UN should have kept the sanctions up, to punish the Iraqi people for something they didn't do, after the war was over?

Explain why the UN is somehow better able to decide whether something is "Legal" or not.

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.

The UN gives IRAN the same standing as Germany! It is a farce, an attempt to make all nations equl, when all nations blatantly are not.

The principle that the participants in a legal situation *should* be equal is a KEY element of any just legal system. Ever heard of undue influence? Duress?

[BoredShirtless]

You however created and fed the "threat". Stop acting like a vigilante [enforcing illegal no-fly zones], no more threat.

You think that ceasing to enforce the no-fly zones would have stopped Saddam from being dangerous? Explain your logic.

Skimmer wasn't saying that, re-read his post.

By your logic, a bystander in a bank robbery not resisting the armed holdup invalidates the crime. Get real.

No, by his logic, a bystander helping the robbers load up the truck afterwords means that the Bystander doesn't oppose the crime (or maybe just wants in on the spoils.)

No it doesn't. The bystander could have a gun to his head. The point Skimmer made was even if invading Iraq was a crime, it's invalid now that the UN is helping rebuild Iraq. However you can't nullify a crime by becoming a part of it.

Actually my analogy could have been better: A bystander in a bank robbery not having stopped the armed holdup, invalidates the crime?

Explain why the UN is somehow better able to decide whether something is "Legal" or not. The UN gives IRAN the same standing as Germany! It is a farce, an attempt to make all nations equl, when all nations blatantly are not.

Fuck off.

[Thirdfain]

The principle that the participants in a legal situation *should* be equal is a KEY element of any just legal system. Ever heard of undue influence? Duress?

The fault of the UN is that it acts like a legal system- a great big courthouse, where countries are defendents or prosecutors. Countries are not people, and you can not apply the moral codes of human-human interactions.

A human can be exempt from Jury duty if he or she is incapable of proper judgement- those with mental disorders, retarded people- are not called for jury duty. In the same way, nations which have shown themselves to be incapable of making rational decisions should not be allowed to take part in the judgement of nations in the UN.

Are you suggesting that the UN should have kept the sanctions up, to punish the Iraqi people for something they didn't do, after the war was over?

You must have misunderstood me- I was saying that by acceeding to the US/UK decisions about Iraq,and agreeing to assist in the reconstruction, the UN is agreeing to the invasion.

[Thirdfain]

Actually my analogy could have been better: A bystander in a bank robbery not having stopped the armed holdup, invalidates the crime?

The UN is not a "bystander." The UN is the body which made the rules which place the US invasion on shaky legal ground. The UN is a body with the ability to stop a US invasion.

A better analogy? The fucking Governer of the state in which the robbery is taking place, with a group of National Guardsmen, stands across the street from the sight of the robbery, and does nothing.

The Governer is giving his tacit approval of the crime. He was the one who first said that bank robbing is illegal, and, by allowing bank robbery to occur, he is invalidating his own statement.

[Vympel]

The fault of the UN is that it acts like a legal system- a great big courthouse, where countries are defendents or prosecutors. Countries are not people, and you can not apply the moral codes of human-human interactions.

Legal systems also regulate businesses and other organizations- bodies of people.

The system ain't perfect, but how else should the UN be structured to optimally achieve it's goals?

A human can be exempt from Jury duty if he or she is incapable of proper judgement- those with mental disorders, retarded people- are not called for jury duty. In the same way, nations which have shown themselves to be incapable of making rational decisions should not be allowed to take part in the judgement of nations in the UN.

That would rapidly exclude every nation on Earth from 'jury duty', so to speak.

You must have misunderstood me- I was saying that by acceeding to the US/UK decisions about Iraq,and agreeing to assist in the reconstruction, the UN is agreeing to the invasion.

I think that's not the case- the UN as an organization has very clear principles- it is practically compelled to assist in such a situation. Being stubborn and inflicting more on the innocent wouldn't do wonders for their image, certainly Personally, I don't think there's really an appropriate analogy.