Any questions?
Yeah! Where does it say we cant replace a regime? 
If we replace a regime, the countries sovereignty is still intact.its still Iraq albeit without Saddam.
Its territorial integrity is also intact. There are no plancs of actually acquiring territory for the US or Britain.
Political independence is asssured if not better served if the people decide on their own who governs them and how. So long as the US doent install an american as permanent leader, I dont see why this would disturb the people of Iraq especially if they are relieved of the burden of UN sanctions and restricted oil export.
…and that funny UN charter you speak so highly of? wont mean a hill of beans if the US calls it irrelevant and resigns from the UN. Who will enforce any of its resolutions? the almighty French?
Just to nitpick, Panama has, from inception, been a US puppet. Teddy Roosevelt wanted it, but Venezuela wouldn’t sell it. Teddy hired out of work mercenarys to start shooting off guns in Panama City and saying they were a revoutionary band, for the independence of sovereign Panama. America recognized the fledging government with heartwarming alacrity and telegraphed the happy news that a contingent of US Marines was serendipitously available to provide security for the fledgling nation, so they need not be distracted from the serious affairs of governance. It was then announced to the utterly confused residents of Panama that they were now citizens of a sovereign nation, and freed from the yoke of the Venezualan oppressor.
Como se dice “Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss”* en espanol?*
As for Afghanistan, no, they don’t particularly seem to be under US domination. They don’t seem to be under Afghani domination either, for that matter. We’ve installed an entirely decent man as mayor of Kabul, after distributing baskets full of $100 bills to his sworn enemies. Good luck. You’re free from the Taliban, resume starving. No need to thank us, really. It was nothing.
What the hell is wrong with you? Why in God’s name would this strike you as a good thing?
Diogenes the Cynic,
I have two questions:
1.) Who is the aggressor in our situation?
Iraq invaded Kewait with the intention to dominate, and uses military power to oppress the citizens of Iraq, does that make Iraq is an (the) aggressor?
Likewise, I assume all anti-war or anti-US dopers will use the above definition to claim the US is an aggressor. Leads to the next question.
2.) What do we do with an aggressor? In dealing with an aggressor, would we ourselves not become an aggressor?
Isn’t it also illegal for the US to assasinate or take out a world leader? The whole Allende/Pinochet in Chile comes to mind. That was quite evil and disgusting.
Guinastasia, that was an executive order from Carter or Ford, I believe. There is nothing to keep any President from rescinding it if Bush has not already done so.
In my oppinion The United States will easily over run and take Bhagdad within a few weeks.
Now I’m not a mindles “USA USA” chanter but the facts are that the modern army sitting on Iraq’s doorstep is too formitable a force. The Iraqi army is no match despite any doom sayers convoluted tactics.
And considering the political climate out there I can not see the US army sitting outside of Bhagdad trying to starve out its defenders. That would become political suicide as the peace movement would use it as an example of inhumane treatment of the citizens in the city (the denial of food water and medical aid is essential to win a seige).
No, instead they will go in quickly and over run the enemy before he could mount a defence. Don’t be surprised if there isn’t a major Air campaign. We may all wake up one day soon to find that the troops are already in the middle of combat.
That being said the main defeat will come not from the military actions but dealing with Iraq after. All this talk of regieme change is nice but the reality of what that means is not so easy. The entire structure of the governement will have to be built from scratch. Who will rule? Will there be an ethnic divide (I’m sure the Kurds are not going to simply give up self rule to join in a greater Iraq) Will the leadership be strong and independent or appear to its neighbours as a puppet government? Will this be the call to radicals to rise up against the US as even more terrorists? Then on top of this there are the actual costs both of replacing munitions and rebuilding a country. Last Time I checked Afghanistan isn’t quite the thriving bastion of democracy and freedom yet. Sure they have their first site up but the government’s influence is pretty pathetic and Afghanistan was a cake walk.
Count me as stunned if the US has fully thought this out in Iraq any better than Afghanistan. Sure they can have a friendly Iraq but what will that do to the people of the region.
To get this all back to the original analogy yes there is a bit of the bully mentality here. Especially in the fact that the bully has only considered the short term goals of beating his enemy to a pulp and not the real consequences of his actions.
1.) If we invade Iraq for any reason other than self-defense, then we are the aggressor.
2.) I don’t think I understand this question. Kuwait no longer has anything to do with this. Iraq is not currently behaving aggressively. If we invade Iraq, then we are the aggressors. What will be done about it? Probably nothing, but that doesn’t make it any more legal.
Guinastasia, You’re right about assasinating other heads of state. The UN interprets a hit on another head of state as an attack on that state’s sovereignty.
7 hostages?
Since when did the U.N. start determining international law? Does it not state that the body that would try a nation for this violation is the Security Council, on which the permanent members have veto power? How many times since the U.N. was formed has it declared a country to be an aggressor? How many countries that are permanent members has it named as aggressors? Do you get the feeling that the U.N. is irrelevent?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**Maybe you can provide us with a cite that shows its actually illegal to replace a regime that has been proven to be corrupt, despotic and a danger to its own people and other nations.
corrupt …Enron and all the other corporate scandals, of whicit was whispered Bush was involved
despotic… Bush administration holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, refusing to give them any rights and denying them prisoner status… A man being arrested in a shopping mal because he was wearing a “give peace a chance” t-shirt
danger to its own people and other nations…the US pulling out of every international coalition (International Criminal courts, to name but one)…US has nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have ever used them in a conflict, I might add.
to a lot of people, you might as well have given a description of the US
Since you and the rest of the world signed.
Yes, people. Despite great efforts to warp reality and confuse the issue, it really is as simple as that.
I would think the worst thing would be Saddam implementing all of his various strategies to maximize civilian casualties. From disguising troops as US and UK troops and slaughtering civilians, suicide bombers, and employing children, to holing up in Baghdad and using chemical weapons - I find it hard to believe that anyone could find a US victory to be the worst thing that could happen.
No. I could see Saddam starting a bloodbath on a scale the world has not seen in since Rwanda, then running away. Or, Saddam might listen to all the speculation on the news channels and attack the US here at home with something really nasty. Those scenarios would be worse than a quick US victory, and Saddam’s death, IMO. I’m sure I could think of quite a few more scenarios worse than the US winning.
Hardly, why is it that everyone thinks the U.N. is redundant just because it doesn’t agree with the U.S.? Isn’t it important that the world can oppose somehow eventhough there might be an attack anyway?
Seems like a good place to stand up against the U.S. without getting a smart bomb to come knocking on your door and a great place for Mr. Bush to get a reality check.
Agreed and people seem to equate the UN with only the Security council. They forget the JCPC the WHO (World health Organization) as well as other parts of the UN that are as relevent today as ever. It is still an important place where nations can meet and speak on international issues.
Senor Beef and elfje, In retrospect my choice of words was poor. However what I meant was that Vietnam was a humbling event for America of the kind Tom Robbins is suggesting they need just now.
Well, in a word, no.
By that definition, we were the aggressor in driving them out of Kuwait. And we are the aggressor, by definition, every time we enforce the cease-fire.
On the other hand, every other nation besides Kuwait, that was a part of the Gulf War coalition, was also engaged in aggression against Iraq, since only Kuwait was threatened.
And of course, Great Britain and France were aggressors against Germany in 1939, since only Poland was attacked.
Regards,
Shodan
Kuwait asked for help and the UN sanctioned US assistance. It was an international intervention against an aggressor, not an unsanctioned, unilateral attack by one country. Enforcements of the no-fly zone are again, international sanctions not American ones.
Shodan, Kuwait invasion was over 12 years ago. Do we still threaten Germany because (i) they caused two world wars and (b) have lots of weapons?
At this point in time Iraq represents zero immediate threat to anyone except its own citizens. They may be a danger in the future, but so could any country.