I had to post this as a question Brain, but you’re wrong. On March 3, 1991 Saddam signed a U.N. mandated cease fire which suspended U.S. aggression in Iraq. He then went on two years later to violate it by ordering his intelligence services to kill Bush 41 in Kuwait City. A new war would have been legal then and there, and you do not need an additional resolution in order to enforce a previous resolution. Furthermore, Iraq fired anti air weapons almost on a daily basis at coalition pilots enforcing the no-fly zones; another violation of the U.N. resolution.
Second, there are four conditions under which a nation sacrifices it’s sovereignty to another nation or the international community as a collective whole:
1.Continued aggression against neighboring states and violation of their territories.
2.Violating the non-proliferation treaty.
3.Harboring wanted terrorists.
4.Genocide.
Saddam’s Iraq met all four of these conditions and demonstrated his ability and willingness to continue to meet them. You mentioned that I was right about us finding that Saddam’s chemists either lied or told the truth about their own WMD program, guess what; we couldn’t have known that had we not invaded.
Finally, Saddam’s continued rule in that country led to it’s internal destruction, they were using copiers to make currency, Saddam’s divide and rule policy led to terrible confessional hatred, and his crime family was allowed to maintain control of a county most aptly described as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it. It would not have remained an un invaded country for long; Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia would have invaded to take control of their clerical proxies and oil, so I don’t know how you make the claim that American intervention was immoral. Thanks for the discussion, and have a happy holiday.
2006-12-21 06:45:51 · 2 answers · asked by billy d 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics