Good answer!
Oh, I forgot to add:
What a country!
[/thick Slavic accent]
So it’s everyone elses fault we couldn’t conquer a place without getting a bunch of people killed?
This seems to me nothing but a feeble excuse to avoid accepting the consequences of our own actions. The rest of the world is not under any obligation to pull our asses out of the fire when we do something stupid and evil. They didn’t invade, we did. It’s our mess.
It’s the rest of the world’s fault that it didn’t take care of Saddam the first time, or finish the job the second time. It was under a UN mandate that the US acted upon. And it is really mature that the Iraqis have to be penalized because ‘we’ (we, as in the US. I’m Canadian) couldn’t do the job properly by ensuring a stable Iraq.
That was Bush the elder’s decision.
It was NOT under a UN mandate that the US acted upon. But if you believe that, then it’s probably useless arguing with you.
Garbage; there would have been even more deaths because there would have been more people to do the killing. “Contribute to the rebuilding effort”? There WAS no rebuilding effort of any significance; just a system to line the pockets of corporations the Administration liked. Adding in foreign contributions would just have enriched them that much more.
“Doing the job properly” would have consisted of NOT INVADING. The Iraqis aren’t being penalized because much of the rest of the world refused to participate; they are being penalized because they are the victims of an imperialist world power, America, that doesn’t regard them as human. We invaded them, devastated the country; and then we slaughtered and tortured and ground them under because they refused to grovel like good slaves in gratitude for our deigning to conquer them.
King Bush the first said
Whose life would be on my hands as the commander in chief if ,I went unilaterally against international law ,beyond the stated mission, and said we are going to show our macho. We’re going into Baghdad. We are going to be an occupying power, -America in an Arab land-, with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.
Like family feud, I clap ,good answer., good answer.
Who will ever forget the image of the Secretary General holding a gun to Bush the youngers head and screaming repeatedly “Invade Now! INVADE NOW!!!”
It’s absurd to claim that the US acted merely as a puppet of the UN.
Bush wanted war, and weaseled around with the nation and the international community until he thought he had cover for it.
It’s too bad the conquest turned out so shitty, but there’s no call to be putting blame on anyone except the fools who started it and their enablers.
I think the reasoning by those who claim we had a UN mandate is that SH was in violation of one or more UNSC resolutions. Pretty much BS, but that’s the claim.
Sure, but IIRC, Israel’s been in violation of various resolutions for longer than Iraq. At any rate, there’s a bunch of em. So Bush and friends should have taken care of our preexisting mandate to conquer Israel before conquering Iraq?
If they’re going to use that sort of logic, they should at least apply it consistently.
This is like me saying I’d like to break into the house next door and steal all their weed. I’m also pretty sure they have illegal weapons. I don’t know for sure, but that’s what I heard. Since I’m going in by myself, I’ll have to kill everybody in the house. That will be your fault because you’d rather sit on your ass than help me raid the house.
There was no UN Resoultion that authorized regime change under any circumstance. That was counter to both the UN Charter, and the specific stated desires of the UN vis-a-vis Iraq.
I know you’re conceding that the argumnt wa BS, but it’s not even good BS.
Brilliant. Now that we have the time machine we can go back in the past and fix things. Oh, wait. We can’t because there is no time machine.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It was NOT under a UN mandate that the US acted upon. But if you believe that, then it’s probably useless arguing with you.
[/QUOTE]
Bush used UN resolution 1441 and previous resolutions to justify his actions. You can debate whether he was correct in his interpretation.
I’ve never understood that line of reasoning.
Where did anyone say we must attack any country in violation of UNSC resolutions? Having the authority to attack is not the same as having a requirement to attack. Now, I don’t buy the “authority” argument on Iraq, but some people do.
And you say the world wants peace? Leaving a dictator like Saddam in power when you have the chance to remove him is not a responsible action. The world doesn’t want peace. It just doesn’t want to be bothered to do what is necessary to ensure lasting peace.
There is a distinction between “attack,” and regime change. Regime change is not authorized ever under any circumstance but direct self-defense.
The world has lots of dictators. We can’t get rid of all of them.
More to the point, though, the United States has signed and ratified a treaty agreeing that it it will never overthrow another government, no matter how evil it is, unless it’s done in direct self-defense. Should the United States honor its treaties or shouldn’t it?
If the answer is no, then any justification based on the UNSC becomes even more vacuous than it already was.
If no one has proposed this “law”, let me do so: Any thread in GD at some point will turn into a debate about the Iraq war.
Last count I did there were 65 dictatorships or single leaders with absolute power. We will be very busy if that is the justification for war. I suppose we have to subdivide them into places that have resources we want and those who don’t. Then make an enemies dictator list. Of course we will have to announce the order we plan to attack in. Bush set that precedence.
Well if it’s not a requirement, it’s an excuse; something along the lines of “the UN said it was OK.” However, Uzi called it a UN mandate rather than a UN statement that “it’d be OK if…”
Perhaps he meant some sort optional mandate, but that’s not how the term is normally used.