"The worst thing about war with Iraq is that there’s no chance the US might lose."

Great Debates
41

Diogenes the Cynic,

To rephrase my poorly worded question: Iraq was (by definition) an aggressor with respect to Kuwait. So under international law, how do we deal with an aggressor while obeying that international law (note: IMHO international law does not exist)?

Secondly, you mentioned self-defence. When can we justify self-defense? I think we are invading Iraq in self-defence therefore our actions are justified?

Finally, I think Kuwait has everything to do with this since that seems to be why we got into this mess in the first place. This is just the follow through?
Kniz,

Sorry, that was meant to read “70 (seventy) American Hostages,” and numbers aside it was intended to show one way the US could lose.

Elfje,

Again, you are using random historical events out of context:
“corrupt …Enron and all the other corporate scandals…”
Enron is as you said a corporate scandal and not a political one. If Pres Bush is implicated there will be an independent investigation, if found guilty he will be dealt with as with Clinton and the sex scandal or Nixon and Watergate. The “corruption” problem X~Slayer(ALE) referred to is a case where Iraq does not have Keneth Starr, and no system in place (as far as I’ve been able to find) with which to remove a “proven” corrupt politician.
“despotic… Bush administration holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay”
Those prisoners are there because they shot at US (and Canadian) troops without wearing a uniform as per the Geneva Convention. As far as I can tell none have been executed while there (I could be wrong) and they are reasonably well treated.
“A man being arrested in a shopping mal because he was wearing a “give peace a chance” t-shirt”
This was discussed in length in another thread. But the man you were referring to was arrested for trespassing, not for “wearing a t-shirt.” Before being arrested he was given several opportunities to either leave, or take off the shirt. Note also, he was arrested, not convicted, and not executed, this received ‘free’ press coverage, and the Mall is currently trying to have the charges dropped.

“US has nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have ever used them in a conflict”
The two times they were used were the first and the last time. The US was under Truman, not Bush Jr or Sr. This was the height of WWII. Japan was told (warned) of the first one and given a chance to surrender. Then warned of the second one, and again given a chance to surrender.

42

scm1001,

You made a good point without realizing it:

No country is actually a threat. Lots of countries have lots of horrible weapons, but they are not a threat until there is a leader with too much power. Germany was not a threat until Hitler took power with clear intentions of dominating Europe and re-built a massive army.

Saddam is a threat, are we still debating this? If you want to go back to the bully example: Who cares if the US is a bully or not? Given Saddam’s past, why should we continue to allow him to play? It would be nice if the principal would step in, but as yet we don’t have one.