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

When it fails to protect it's citizenry...in your opinion.


The reason we leave it in the hands of (hopefully) unbiased bodies like the courts in the analogy or the UN in the reality is so that it's not the opinion of one party which dictates policy, it's the opion of the whole. Any individual party can feel that in a given situation the machinations of the law aren't suffiecient, but if we give each individual the right to take the law into their own hands if and when they feel it's not working, there is no law...especially when, in the exact opposite circumstances, the party now wanting to do so has been among the, if the not the biggest proponent of others abiding by the law even when they felt it insufficient in the past.

 

So lets keep the regime in there and let them continue to slaughter their own people. The bottomline is that you're trying to blame the U.S. for something that Saddam Hussein and his regime has done. If you really believe that if the UN and their sanctions just left Iraq alone nobody would have gotten hurt then I don't know what to say because the 500,000 children who died is on the hands of the people who actually killed them, not because of some sanction like you keep claiming.

 

To dismiss the UN as a debating society or irrelevant is to judge them on the basis of one decision that you didn't agree with. If we look at humanitarian aid, delivered to starving and impoverished people everywhere, they certainly aren't just an irrelevant debating society. They serve a real and valuable purpose. Maybe they don't enforce all the resolutions countries are breaking, including Israel and the PLO. But you won't hear too many American officials calling the UN irreleveant because they don't enforce resolutions that American allies are breaking.

To judge the UN on the basis of just one issue(support for Iraq) is a very narrow of looking at things.

 

..and furthermore the same thing that every other nation who disagreed with it in the past, most notably Kruschev's USSR has done. It is easy to say abide by world opinion even if it's not yours when world opinion is on your side. To dismiss the value of it as soon as it isn't in agreement with you just makes you another hypocrite, albeit one with more guns.

 

To answer the original question...does anyone really care? Oh no, they killed Saddam! The world is better off without piles of crap with eyes like him.

To all you anti-war, hippie peace mongers out there, I ask you: Is it better to just let Saddam let people starve, gas civilians, and just be an overall dick, or wage a little "war" (it's just gonna be a small conflict) that's going to wind up with fewer civilian deaths than there would be should we let Saddam and his sons continue their rule? All you're saying is that it's OK if innocent people are killed, just so long as it's not a war that's causing it.

I say blow that sonofabitch up.

 

BTW, your concern for Iraqi innocents is touching. I hope you have not lost too much sleep over the last twelve years!!!

This war may have unwanted consequences.

The US runs the risk of motivating more Muslims to join radical terrorist groups.

The US's alliances on the real War on Terror have actually been weaken by Bush's diplomatic shenanigans on Iraq.

The end math may be that after a war with Iraq the US will a world with more terrorists and less international support for the War on Terror.

Rebuilding a post-war Iraq might be a nightmare. See Afghanistan.

The new post war Iraqi democracy will likely not be a pro-West government.

etc.

For a more in depth analysis (pros and cons) see Chapter 2 of War with Iraq

 

I see it the other way. The other foreign countries housing terrorists are now going to see that we can destroy an entire governemnt in less than a week. Now tell me if you are Iran and if you have terrorists in your country isn't there a little more incentive to say "Get the he11 out of here, before teh US comes calling"

Terrorism will always be a problem but I think this is a positive 1st step. people will now see that we do mean business, we went after Al Quada with our troops now we take out Iraq.

 

Peoples will see North Korea and see nuclear bomb ........and know u dont mean business anymore

 

The U.S. doesn't have to officially annex anyone. A U.S. friendly regime that allows our business interests to do whatever they want is even better don't you think?

We're not war criminals in the aspect that the Iraqi people will be better off with Saddam gone. But citing UN security council resolutions as a reason to invade would be foolish when we're ignoring the judgement of that same security council.

History is written by the victors I suppose. I'm not anti-war by any means but I don't believe this war really has anything to do with WMD or Human rights anyways. Abandoning the U.N. just further serves to emphasize that argument.

 

Also to answer the original question. Bush rescinded the presidential directive that made assassinations legal again.