There is an even more basic issue at play here, that december seems to be avoiding. Even if Iraq DID have WMDs, that still doesn’t by default make them a threat to the USA. What indication was there of the imminent use of these weapons against American citizens?
… to continue my point: India and Pakistan have the bomb, but you don’t see Bush invading those countries.
I read the story, december, and I’d judge it to be complete crap.
Sounds just like more of the crap that the DoD has been listening to from Chalabi’s band of liars and thieves.
You have raised a quite serious point. International law and UN principles give great weight to leaving regimes alone, no matter how evil they are internally. But, under this standard, the world should do nothing against a evil regime, as long as their wickedness is internal. E.g., when Pol Pot kills millions of Cambodians or Robert Mugabe causes intentional mass starvation within his own country or when Stalin intentionally starved 10 million Ukranians. I have a problem with this principle.
Saddam had a history of exporting his evilness. He attacked Kuwait and Iran, starting wars that led to over a million deaths. He openly supported middle Eastern terrorism. He was building medium range missiles that could reach quite a few other countries.
Furthermore, the example of 9/11 showed us that the world is a small place. We cannot afford to ignore evil, just because it’s half a world away.
In short, ISTM we need to rethink the principle of ignoring a regime’s internal behavior.
You’re still missing the point, december.
“Regime chance” isn’t a sensible objective, nor is “invasion”.
Let’s say Bush wants to invade Canada. The immediate question would be: Why? What do you hope to achieve?
“Regime change” is not a sensible answer in itself, because the question still remains: Why? What do you hope to achieve?
The answers to that question might describe a sensible objective. But “regime change” isn’t enough on its own.
Well, december, your response at first seemed fairly reasoned. However, as any great politican might do, you completely avoided answering the question. Whether you believe a regieme change in this situation was morally mandated, doesn’t change the fact that war for the sake of regieme change is illegal. Your reasoning seems similar to what wackos say to justify the murder of doctors performing abortion.
Illegal has little meaning in cases of international law. Internatinal law is ignored by everybody when it suits them, most of the time with no consequences. International law is not yet something that has any kind of real-world authority.
Sure it’s illegal. Saddam himself was illegal, a violation of the UN Human RIghts Convention. If there was an effective enforcement mechanism for international law, this wouldn’t ever be necessary. Since there isn’t ,it makes no sense to try to bind the US by it while giving a pass to other nations who violate it.
By breaking International Law yourself you can’t the take someone else to task for doing the same thing.
Suppose North Korea decide South Korea are planning to invade. They have no proof , but they believe it. Does thaqt make it OK for them to invade?
What is Bush going to say then … " err. hey guys, Thats against International Law?"
Bush has effectively sidelined the UN, together with International Law.
Oh, December, this is so pathetic. Can’t you see how far you’ve fallen? It’s not “They’ve got weapons of mass destruction” any more. It’s “They know how to make WMD. And they were thinking about it … really HARD!”
Some justification for war.
Any attack on the sovereignty of another state for any reason other than self-defense or imminent threat is a violation of the UN charter. Internal politics, including despotism, are explicitly excluded as justifications for aggression. The only legal justification for the invasion of Iraq was imminent threat via WMDs. That justification has now been proven false, and what’s more, the Bushies knew it was false before they launched the invasion. That is not a small issue, it’s a major breech of national and international trust. I know it’s not as bad as (heavens) getting a blow job, but isn’t it even a little bit disturbing to the Bush boosters?
Are you equating the US invasion with Iraq with a N. Korean invasion (although hypothetical) of S. Korea? While I understand your point about international law (to the extent that such a thing actually exists) do you really believe that there is not a distinction?
Let’s take it a bit further. Suppose that N. Korea actually invaded the South tomorrow. What would happen? The international community, including the UN, would unanimously (or nearly unanimously) condem it, and a counter invasion would ensure. That counter invasion would be led by the US and almost certainly have the full blessing of the UN. Would anyon in the “international community” seriously put up a roadblock to that invasion simply because the US has recently invaded Iraq? I don’t think so.
Perhaps your analogy might have been more realistic had you proposed something like China invading Vietnam for some reason. Anyway, my point is that the world would judge an invasion of one country by another not just by the “sovereinty” issue, but by whether or not the country being invaded was 1) a trusted member of the international community in the first place and 2) recognized as a serious violators of it’s citizens rights. Iraq fails both those tests. S. Korea passes both.
How about another criteria John Mace?
- Whether the aggresor is so powerful that it could simply crush you out of existence if you resisted.
Isn’t this evidence that the UN sanctions were working?
december, let me tell you how easy it is to have a “potential” program.
In my lab I have various bacterial strains for controls. Among these are all sorts of pathogens. Let’s say that I want to have bio-weapons program. I can either use one of my control strains I’ve ordered from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection), thus having this strain fully logged categorized, and the paperwork in order or I can order a new strain from ATCC. If I don’t want to get caught, and I want a strain, I can go out and find it wt (wild type). I can relatively easily acquire wt pathogens by going to a hospital, a sheep farm, or a slaughter house.
Let’s say now I got wt anthrax from a sheep farm. With a little knowledge of Microbiology, I can culture and refine my strain. Now I put it in a test tube, on a “slant” and I put it in my fridge. I now have a “potential” bio-weapon, that I can put in my pocket.
Chem-weapons are even easier. Got a formula for VX? Memorize it. Hell put it in your wallet. Voilà!“Potential” chem weapon.
I suppose because I have degrees in both Chemistry and Microbiology, I have “potential” chem-bio weapons capability.
Potential don’t mean diddly. We didn’t go to war for “potential”, we went to war because we could be attacked in “45 minutes” with “tons and tons” of weapons.
Monster, yes we did give Iraq bacterial strains. ATCC sent them many different stains. From this old thread I went through the various strains that were sent, and didn’t find that any were particularly dangerous, and only B. anthrasis was suitable for bio-weapons capability. Most were the type of controls one would need in a food lab. Common in part of the world where food is often contaminated.
Just give them enopugh time and im sure they will
Who’s “them”? What’s “enopugh”? Who’s “im”? “they will” what?
How much time is required?
We were told he definately had them, we were shown satellite photo’s of places which proved he had them.
I can’t belive that we stopped watching these places before we attacked, so either the weapons are still there or we watched them being moved somewhere else, Either way we should know where they are.
How much time is required IF we really had anything more than conjecture and innuendo.
what polls?
If it doesn’t matter whether WMD’s are found or not, then why are both Bush and Blair under severe criticism from their own governments and their opposition?
Blair could lose his position as PM of the UK, and Bush is facing impeachment if it’s proven that he lied to rally support for his war.
I’d say it does matter, as the WMD were the main reason for this (illegal) war.
Bush is under severe criticism?
I mean beside from people on internet MBs?
I’ve not heard a peep on the radio, (the most mainstream of my news info sources).