I've been away from my computer for a while, and it looks like the discussion got interesting while I was away.....
I appreciate the compliment, Recruit Joe... But I'm going to respond to your last here.
Recruit Joe said:
Also, all you people are falling all over yourselves to defend the US in this instance but you fail to remember that 1.) There was NEVER any hard evidence of WMD and 2.) They STILL haven't found any. Not 1.
One of my biggest problems with the Bush Administration was the way they justified the war. While mentioning other reasons in passing, they put all their eggs in the WMD basket - a rather dumb strategy, in my mind, because a smart opponent could simply have destroyed / moved the weapons / facilities before the hostilities commenced. As it appears, that very well may have happened....
I'll point out that there was a consensus in the West that Saddam was pursuing these programs - after all, he had used them before! There was questions about what stage he was at in his research, and about how to encourage him to comply with the resolutions, but I'll also point out that the inspection regime was in place and supported by the French, Chinese, and Russians (they wanted to keep inspecting!). They had some expectation that Saddam was up to no good. They chose not to enforce their own resolutions....
I would state that the war was still justified without any WMD, for the following reasons:
1) Saddam sheltered and supported terrorists. The US found the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking in Baghdad. Saddam paid stipends to the families of suicide bombers. terror training camps were found and destroyed. Convincing evidence has been found of links between his intelligence agencies and Al-Qaeda. In the post 9/11 context, and with the precedent of Afghanistan, taking out Saddam's regime was justified.
2) The First Gulf War ended with an understanding that Saddam would comply with UN resolutions from that point on, that he would give up his WMD programs, and that he would no longer threaten his neighbors. Since then, he moved his troops to threaten Kuwait at least twice, he "bobbed and weaved" on the WMD issue by refusing to give the WMD inspectors full and transparent cooperation, and the UN itself recognized that Saddam was refusing to comply with its resolutions (and stated as much in further resolutions!) The war therefore could have been justified on the grounds that Saddam had failed to comply with the agreement that ended the first war, and that therefore the first war was not over. (In hindsight, it was stupid to have stopped the first war - the coalition should have continued until the Ba'athists were removed...)
3) The Kosovo precedent - that a nation committing horrendous human rights violations forfeits its sovereignty and that the international community is justified in taking action to protect human life. Saddam, immediately after the first war, slaughtered thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites (the reason why no-fly zones were put in place). Mass graves have since been found in Iraq. The world would have been justified in removing him on humanitarian grounds.
4) Saddam was a clear and present danger to regional security - in a region of strategic importance to the whole world. He started two wars of aggression (Iran and Kuwait). He developed chemical weapons and used them against his own people. He pursued a nuclear program - as was proven after Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor. He repeatedly threatened his neighbors. He threatened to send the Republican guard across Jordan to help the Palestinians - a threat the Israelis took seriously. He attacked a neutral nation during the First Gulf War (Israel). And he poured money and material into his military at a time when his people were in poverty. In short, Saddam was an unpredictable threat, known to attack others without warning or provocation, with a great amount of firepower at his disposal, and was seeking more.
The US should have focused on these reasons equally with the WMD reason. They were totally justified on going to war on these grounds.
Recruit Joe said:
I base my view of the Unites States of America on thier atrocities to humanity also. Furthermore, they have no right and don't belong in certain places. Remember the book+movie+story of Black Hawk Down? Why were they there? They certainly shouldn't have been! The people didn't even WANT, them there. They always stick thier nose where it isn't wanted.
Speaking of atrocities, our hands aren't clean either. Look at how we've treated the natives in our own country - confined them to squalid reserves and propped up corrupt chiefs, while giving handouts that do nothing to encourage personal responsibility or initiative but encourage dependence on a welfare state. Remember that we turned away shiploads of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. And in WW2, La Regiment de la Chaudiere (spelling?) developed a reputation for not taking prisoners, a violation of the laws of war, in retaliation for the summary execution of some members of their regiment by the SS. Remember that India's nuclear weapons were developed with Canadian nuclear technology. And I hate to bring it up, but the actions of certain individuals in Somalia (NOT the whole Regiment) were atrocities.
As for intervening where we're not wanted, the same argument could apply to us - we've sent troops everywhere. In Cyprus in the 1970s, and in the Balkans in the 1990s, all sides were shooting at us. Somalia - we were there too, remember? And both Canada and the US were there with the justification of a Chapter 7 UN resolution. Are you saying that even with a UN resolution, intervention would have been wrong? Because every Canadian mission from UNEF in the Sinai to the recent deployment to the Sudan would therefore have been illegitimate.
Recruit Joe said:
Remember when that Russian Sub a few years ago sunk and the Russians were trying to rescue thier sailors? They begged the US to help them, the US said they couldn't help because "The weather was too dangerous!"......
Can I ask for your source for this statement? If I recall correctly, the Russians refused assistance from European nations for several days until they realized they couldn't handle the problem themselves. Then they asked the Norwegians and the Brits to help, and they did. I'll opine that the US would never pass up the opportunity to assist in that case, because (a) it would make them look bad, (b) it's the wrong thing to do, and it's the Law of the Sea to help in those circumstances, (c) if the situation were reversed, the US would want to have the Russian option available if it was the only way to rescue American sailors, and (d) helping would offer the chance for Americans to collect intelligence on a rather secret aspect of Russian operations. Weather wouldn't have been a factor because the DSRV that the US uses for such rescues is flown to the closest port and then piggybacked to the site on a submarine.
Recruit Joe said:
Hmm... Selective aren't they? The United States of America is b*llshit and full of two-faced presidents and leaders who will stop at nothing to take what they want.
With all respect, you can do better than this, Recruit Joe. There are Americans who post on this board, and many of us have American relatives. We can disagree with their policies without slandering them. Let's keep the discussion civil and not resort to name-calling.
As for the two-faced leaders, look at our own politicians. Stopping at nothing - look at the attack ads by all sides in the recent election here. We're no better....
I guess my overall point is that no one is clean. You have to look at each situation on its own merits. Failing to do the right thing simply because your nation made mistakes in the past is a "two wrongs make a right" argument - it doesn't work. And I hope the US never adopts that line of reasoning - we'll be right back to WW1 and WW2 where things are coming apart and we have to talk them into coming to help us in the "nick of time." There is a strong isolationist sentiment in the US, and it almost cost us those two wars. Let's not encourage the isolationists any more - we still need the States.
