Actually, a previous post aroused my curiosity: suppose a powerful national entity (take your pick) decided that the U.S. government was as evil as Saddam because of, say, the plans to invade Iraq, the national death penalty, and abortion (i.e. not necessarily on religious/moral grounds, but ones similar to the reasons we will invade Iraq). Suppose they proposed, in much the same way the U.S. is now, to invade the United States and take down the Bush Administration.
Of course, many, if not most, Americans would resist such an effort, even some anti-war people. BUT, what would you, especially those of you who were pro-war, think of the legitimacy of war? Of the means they’re using? In other words, if we were in the Iraq position, would we suddenly think that the tactics of other nations were unacceptable and warmongering? Or would we say they were legitimate, but simply argue the wrongness of the evidence?
“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.” - Bill Clinton
When Saddam invades other sovereign nations we do fight him. To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that Saddam is planning to annex any of his neighbours in the near or distant future. As such, we shouldn’t flout international law so cavalierly on the basis of what appears to me to be little more than overly pessimistic prognostications as to what Saddam might possibly perhaps maybe do at some unknown point in the future under unknown circumstances. No, we should not invade Iraq until we have more than circumstantial evidence that he poses an actual threat as opposed to a hypothetical one. There are far more dangerous people in the world than our resident tinpot Baghdad bogeyman.
Is it? I don’t see that this is necessarily true. After all, just because he’s an oppressive, rack happy psychotic doesn’t necessarily mean that the people will appreciate the armed forces of a nation whose flag regularly gets burned in the street coming in to “liberate” them. Especially when the risk of civilian casualties is so high (given Saddams propensity for human shields).
This seemingly counter intuitive social paradigm can be seen right now in the form of a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. In spite of an improving quality of life, the Taliban are still recruiting from the civilian body and are mounting guerilla raids on allied forces.
Personally, I find the new “humanitarian” stance the US & the UK are taking to be disingenuous in the extreme. It’ll go down in history as the world’s first ever mass mercy killing.
“…After all, just because he’s an oppressive, rack happy psychotic doesn’t necessarily mean that the people will appreciate the armed forces of a nation whose flag regularly gets burned in the street coming in to ‘liberate’ them…”
Precisely my point.
If the goal is short-term appreciation from the average Iraqi, forget it. (Not to imply that the Iraqis are less appreciative than anyone else, including us.)