Isn't "assasinating" Saddam considered a war crime?

You're blaming U.S. sanctions for the murder of thousands of people instead of Hussein himself. So using your logic, if the U.S. pulled their sanctions and left then everything would have been fine because the genocide was caused by the U.S. Could you honestly say that if the U.S. pulled their sanctions then the Iraqi people would be safe and live happily ever after under Saddam Hussein's?

 

They were UN sanctions not US sanctions.

And, France, Russia, & China all ignored the UN sanctions they passed and still did business with Iraq.

Good allies huh?

DD

 

Ah I see, I misunderstood. My mistake!

Interesting, so I guess that makes France, Russia and China countries that caue genocide and are responsible for 500,000 people as well! I propose that we pull the sanction, and start firing at each other, that'll help the Iraqi people!

 

The UN has stated that 500,000 children would not have died. I find that the number of child deaths is beyond obscene and that anybody who dismisses the deaths as a viable means to an end (regime change) is lacking in humanity.

 

Look at the last sanctions vote in the UNSC and note the abstentions from the veto members.

 

1) You might want to re-read the resolution, under the body of authority section...it is defined as the United Nations....repeat, the United Nations, NOT the United States which decides A) If there is a material breach, B) If said breach is worthy of repecussion, and C) What the degree of that repercussion is....once again, the UN has the authority to resume actions in the cirumstance you outline, NOT any individual participant in the past encounter...that would be ridiculous...imagine if the rest of the world read that agreement with the same geo-centric myopia you did, that would effectively leave Iraq open to invasion at any time any of the participants in the past war determined they were in breach, even if the United Nations itself said no. I know, I know...we're not talking about anyone else, we're just talking about the United States, and the rules shouldn't apply...

2) It is therefore not being done under UN direction, and is therefore a non-authorized act of aggression. The fact that you think that we are right in this matter doesn't alter it.

3) None of the intervening resolutions, or any of the resolutions themselves grants any individual nation to act independantly to resolve things as they see fit whether or not they feel the UN is doing a good enough job in the matter. None of your rationale applies.

 

1441 in no way approves or offers exceptions to their definition of pre-emptive defense, nor does it specifiy what extreme measures consitute an appropriate response to any given breach...what it does specify is that the governing body making those decisions isn't the US government, but the UNSC...

 

I guarantee you that any and all 'vigilantes' have felt that they were merely doing what the law refused to do...and they are still called criminals. The problem with reducing enforcement of the law is that you also reduce the scope of it's accountability while simultaneously increasing it's scope of subjectivity...would you feel comfortable living in a society where everyone else is entitled to do what you have suggested? I like old Westerns as much as the next man, but I am damn sure I don't want to live there and then...

 

I am comfortable with you prefering his analogy to mine...the difference is merely in the assumption that the equivalent of the US is right to begin with...but even if you assume that in this case, they would still be in the wrong, ven in HS's analogy...and would be criminals.

 

I can see that to you the small item of invading another nation isn't worth much discussion on it's merits, nor would we want to waste time splitting hairs about holding ourselves accountable to the same world opinion that we demanded other nations 'throw their sovereignty' to in the past...Just because we demanded it of others is no reason to expect it of ourselves...when we don't like the UN decisions, they ipso facto become irrelevent. Makes perfect sense...

 

you know...you probably could have just done one post and knocked all of us out.

the UN is simply a debating society, MacBeth. That's all it is at this point. All talk...no action. each nation has its own interests at heart.

iraq didn't throw their sovereignty at the door of the UN...they never have...they were the aggressors in a war...they agreed to terms of surrender they didn't live to. the united states felt that their failure to do so could pose a potential risk to security. so the united states, with the help of allies, decided it was best to eliminate that risk. but they didn't do that until they had presented opportunity after opportunity for the UN to act in concert. the UN refused...we presented evidence of non-compliance...they claimed the evidence didn't matter...that it wouldn't change their position. those were the literal words of the german ambassador.

at what point can a nation defend itself? at what point can it ascertain risks to its own security and act on them? i suppose you'll tell me that they only can if they get the permission of the rest of the world, each with their own interests. i would say that's crap. history won't judge us poorly for acting without a pat on the back from Kofi Annan, France, China and Russia.

 

They are called 'criminals' when there is a body designated for enforcement, and that body does so. Not true in this case. In fact, the UN is not even empowered to enforce the 'law' in the same way that a community makes its 'laws' for the police to enforce.

 

1) The covenience of the timing is amazing...for years the Un disagreed with the USSR about invading other nations...and then we decreed that they were very relevent indeed. For years allies of ours ( Israel etc.) ignired UN dictates without drawing so much as a murmur from us, let alone a condemnation of impotence...and then the UN doesn't support our premise that this situation justifies invasion, and presto chango...gosh darnit, the UN is irrelevent. Of course, the possibility that the UN isn't irrelevent, that it isn't just all talk, that it isn't useless is based on the assumption that we are in no way wrong...If we are absolutely right, then yes, those who oppose us are probably wrong...but....what if......we're wrong.....?

 

then we'll pay the price...but i want US policymakers ascertaining on acting on those risks...those are the leaders ultimately responsible to my vote. not those in france, china or russia.

by the way...this isn't the first time we've called the UN irrelevant. see Kosovo for one.

 

2) We demanded it of several nations in the past...including but not exclusive to the USSR, Great Britain, and France...we demanded that they sacrifice their right to determine their foreign policy insofar as it affects others nations on the basis that world opinion, as defined by the UN, was the arbiter of global international justice...We did this literally hunderds of times...noew when it is inconvenient for us to do what we demanded of others, we ignore it. Iraq DID ignore world opinion, correct...and what was the result? When they invaded another nation, citing their own reasons which the world didn't agree with? They were wrong.

3) To answer when and where a nation can defend itself, I refer you to the UN definitions of same...it's lengthy, but covers virtually any scenario, including terrorist attacks ( which we have no proof is relevent here)...In case you need help finding it, it's the one the US mostly wrote....the one that says attacking anohter nation which you think might represent an as yet to be realised or proven theat is not defense, but aggression...the one we now are acting as if it applied to everyone...except us...because unlike everyone else, we have our reasons....

 

Just like judges don't go out and arrest people...but they decide the constraints for doing so....

 

USSR comparisons are silly. The USSR invaded to annex. The US is not doing this, so there is NO parallel.

I've got an idea. We can take a show of hands and see how many people think MacBeth's interpretation is the best way to go:

Who thinks we should release Milosevic and put Clinton and Blair on trial for war crimes? After all, Milosevic claimed the intervention the ultimately claimed him was 'illegal' and Clinton and Blair sponsored interventions outside the UN.

C'mon, doesn't that sound like the straight up thing to do? Wasn't intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo JUST LIKE the USSR's annexation of Afghanistan? And aren't we all really glad the UN is our policeman and final arbiter of what is and is not just? I'm sure the Rwandans are...I'm sure the Bosnias are, and the Kurds are.

 

MacBeth..I don't know what to tell you...the world is a very different place. We used to tell passengers on hijacked planes to sit still...don't fight back...we thought that increased their chances of survival. That all changed when the hijackers started slamming planes into buildings. Now we tell people to fight...fight with whatever you have...however you can. Fight for your own lives.

Bill Clinton told us in 1998 we had to have a new approach. And this was well before 9/11. He said you can't simply wait and sit back anymore...waiting for something to happen. He was right.

After 9/11, that message is loud and clear. We don't fight an enemy who matches well with our outdated modes of containment. It just doesn't work that way anymore. They have nothing they seek to preserve...and they're more than willing to trade their lives for American lives. The lives of American civilians. The United States ascertained a threat. The United Kingdom, Spain and some 14 other European nations agreed. Japan and S. Korea agreed. So we're in Iraq removing a regime that presented the threat of sharing WMD with Islamic terrorists. You can call it illegal...you can call it whatever you want. You can compare Bush to an outlaw as our armed forces disarm a man who lies about the existence of WMD...WMD he's used on his own people, no less. You can peruse the technicalities of the legalities of a body that refuses to enforce its own orders all you like. I will continue to support this. I think it ultimately makes America safer...and I know it makes Iraqis safer for the long term. I see hope from this. Maybe I'm a ridiculous optimist.

 

great point...you do realize you're echoing the arguments of Milosevic, don't you MacBeth? sure you wanna be on that side of the argument?

 

Just as a government loses its legitimacy when it fails to protect its citizenry, so is the UN losing it legitimacy as it fails to protect its citizenry. In that case, there must be another body that steps forward.

Again you come with the wild west analogies, but there is a difference between being in NYC in the 1800s and being out in the wilderness where there is no protection from the elected government. Just as the US government would not have prosecuted citizens moving against a mass murderer on the frontier, neither should we be afraid to act where the UN will not. Especially when they refuse to act based on pure self interest.