Why not? His stance is essentially, in the WWII context, "Ah fvck those stupid Jews, it ain't my problem!"
Jason
Why not? His stance is essentially, in the WWII context, "Ah fvck those stupid Jews, it ain't my problem!"
Jason
That's not exactly true either. The US does not surrender its authority or autonomy to the UN. In spite of the UN's efforts in recent years to get US legislators to pass laws allowing the UN to override the US constitution, it so far hasn't happened.
Further, as a matter of pure moral philosophy, a free people ALWAYS have the right, though not the *duty*, to liberate an oppressed people if they so choose. In the US that authority is granted to Congress and the President, and they agreed TOGETHER, in a BIPARTISAN manner, to remove Saddam. That their stated primary reasons turned out to be false is immaterial.
Jason
There is plenty of evidence that shows Bush and company mislead us to war. If you think otherwise look at the history of public statements made by bush and company. With that said if you where lied to about WMDs and invaded a entire country. Wouldn't you be slightly annoyed? I know I would be annoyed enough to start my own personal investigation into the matter.
There is a *moral* case for invading Iraq but so what? Is it the United State's responsiblity to go around enforcing law?
Saddam hasn't really done anything wrong in the past 10 years that warrents for a full-scale invasion.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Tell that to those that he slaughtered and/or had executed over that time frame.
Maybe not an invasion for any one thing, but crying wolf to many times backfired; he sure was not a choir boy to his own people and the rest of the world body. He attempted to play everyone for suckers. And most fell for it.
We did not need a full scale invasion; just a surgical strike; but where and when. The chain of command that instituted his policies also had to be removed.
And how many would that have been since 1995? I'd wager there were many more killed in Korea from malnutrition, dissidents in Cuba or China, genocide in Sudan, etc. than in Iraq. Oh, well, there are the many thousands who died in Iraq due to the UN sanctions and the delay in setting up oil-for-food that left people, mostly children, malnourished and hospitals unable to maintain inventories of medicines safely. And, being as the US is the biggest arm of the UN, I guess we should have invaded ourselves.
Saddam was contained.
Gen. Zinni was right.
But it was never used as the sole legal justification for the invasion. That would be the WMDs.
Jeez Louise, people. Even Richard Perle can admit that WMDs were the only reason! If the king of the PNAC fvcks can admit it, you can, too!
Look at what I said again: At least, so long as we're looking at UN law.
The legality, as it were, is a concept entirely dependant on the UN for context. The US has no legal right to override the UN, because that legality is entirely the domain of the UN. It is the only relevant world governing body, and as such world law is established and enforced by them, with the participation of member nations.
Of course, there's the ICC and whatever, but we know the US can just ignore that as well. Fact of the matter is, there is no other significant world governing body. And so when we talk about legality in the context of world politics, the UN is the final arbiter of all legal matters.
That was during the Reagan Admin when we supported Saddam and with George W. Bush senior. Even George W. Bush knows that staying in Iraq would have been a bad idea.
There was no reason to invade him, the people he killed where dead along time ago. Why the sudden outrage?
We didn't need any invasion. Though, if we gave money under the table to rebels and we supported them. I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
We now know for a fact that Bush knew their was NO WMD in Iraq before we invaded. We now know for a fact that Bush knew Saddam posed no threat to his neighbors before we invaded. We also now know Bush/Blair conspired to make up the evidence for WMD prior to the war.
The recently leaked memo of this evidence is being discussed here. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1585208&enterthread=y Do your self a favor and read up on it. This changes everything you might think you know regarding the buildup and selling of the war. No one can say we thought WMD existed before the war anymore. Thats now been debunked.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
i support our troops and the war. i cannot understand how someone can kill people like that and why people can be so against the war
You do realize this stuff happen in the 80's?
What does going over to Iraq accomplish? It's not going to bring these people back.
That's a poor comparrison. A rapist in my town and in my country has a direct influence on my life. How does something that's across the world that I don't know about or effect me at all? There are plenty of situations much simaller to Iraq that are not dealt with. Why should our country that already has plenty of internal problems go out and deal with other countries problems?
Well, they're going to have plenty of time. He'll likely die of old age before he goes to trial. He has way too much dirt on how red with blood the U.S.'s hands are.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
We did not need to be in WWI or WWII either.
No one in the United States was at risk nor was the United States attacked.
we had no interested in the conflicts.
Correct??
Remember we didn't join in WWI until almost at the end.
And, um...WWII...umm...Pearl Harbor? Supply ships in the Atlantic? Ring any bells?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Part was sarcasm.
Peal Harbor and Alaska were not part of the US at the time, just territories.
And supposedly, Japan attacked us because we were threating their oil supplies coming from Indonesa. HAd we ignored Japan when they went after China and Asi, they would not have bothered us.
Supply ships were not being attacked until after we declared hostilities.
Therefore had we kept our noses out of the world affairs we would not have been attacked and there was then no need to go to war.
Afterall, Europe, Russia, China, Africa and Autstralia were not important to us. Why go to war for them.
Au contraire. We had supply ships heading to Britain that were under attack by the Germans before we entered the war.
Question who did we support during the Iran/Iraq war ? Who did the Kurds side with during the Iran/Iraq war ? Where was the moral outcry when this was happening at the time from everyone who is now crying over a pile of bones ?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
I may be mistaken on the supply ships. However it does back to my question. Why were we involved at all. Why did we need to send supplies to Britian. It would seem that we were putting our people and noses where they did not belong.
The gist that I am digging for is that we have a history of helping others even when we are not directly threaten; because we as a nation feel that it is the right thing to do.
No one has yet indicated that we should not have been involved with these conflicts; even though it cost us lives.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter