No, by that same line of reasoning I would say "because we have incarcerated a murderer and he doesn't have the means to murder anybody, then he no longer has the ability to murder anybody".
Well, if that's the way you want to word it, OK. Unfortunately, this was not true prior to the invasion: Saddam was not incarcerated, he was still ordering killings. For all the hoopla about the psychological torture in Abu Ghraib by some US troops, let us not forget that Saddam was carrying out physical torture and murder in that same place. Where was the world's outrage over this? Thanks to the Coalition, the murder IS now incarcerated. Thanks for helping me make that point.
What it doesn't explain, though, is why Saddam was therefore a more pressing concern than the Palastenians themselves.
This is what I was referring to as the "real" reason for the invasion that was politically incorrect. Israel could not remove Arafat, and neither could the US, as much as anyone with half a brain can see that he IS the problem. Since Arafat refused to crack down on homicide bombings (as they were orchestrated by his own Fatah party), then getting rid of sponsors of that terrorism is the next best thing. As people were always criticizing the US for not "doing something" about the Middle East cesspool, the decision was made to do something by eliminating Saddam. He was an extremely convenient target, not only to push Arafat's group of thugs to the point we see them now, but also to send a crystal clear message to the Arab world that the world's superpower does, indeed, have the will to use its power of hegemony. I would hope that you would agree that the "power elite" in Iran are not terribly comfortable right now....a good thing.
You will also note that I didn't say that he was no threat to the outside world, I said that he didn't bear comparison to Hitler in that regard.
Well, I do agree that you said that. But did it ever occur to you that one (of many) reasons that he didn't compare to Hitler in terms of sheer scope was precisely because he was not permitted to go as far as Hitler? And... are you implying that if we had simply limited Hitler to his German borders that his extermination of German Jews would have been acceptable behavior? Who is to say that if continued pacifism of Saddam were allowed that he would NOT, again, seek to attack another country? Given his track record of Iran and Kuwait, I think you would agree that (statistically speaking) he was more likely to try again than to not.
Oh grow up, will you? Your assertation is that he was a threat to the outside world because there were US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Why do you think it is not acting "grown up" when I call you on changing my words, as we can clearly see in this quote? These words are yours, and they bear no resemblance to my assertation, which is: The fact that Saddam was a threat to the outside world is what precipitated the invitation of US troops into the Saudi Kingdom. I believe I have made this point twice, and yet you still seemed to twist it with your words above. Cause-effect: Saddam's threat was the cause, US troops entering SA was the effect.
My assertation is that those troops were doing their job and containing Saddam, making Saudi Arabia safer. This is not even slightly changing the point, it's answering it.
It is an attempt to change the point, because in your assertation it is implicit that Saddam was a threat to the outside world. You are just not admitting it overtly. The fact that US forces were protecting Saudi Arabia in no way alters the fact that Saddam was a threat... it only made him think twice about starting any trouble with the Saudis. And one could extend this thought to propose that this is why he turned his attention to the Palestinians....to threaten Israel. I am sure you are aware that Israel has seen Saddam as a threat well before he invaded Kuwait.
Yes. In fact, I've just been vindicated in this view by the Seneate, have I not?
Political gamesmanship. Look, I am not even arguing that the WMD ploy wasn't weak. But politically speaking, it was the only viable ploy that could leverage Saddam's disregard for the UN resolutions. The end result is the problem is gone, and while they will never admit it publicly, there is more than one nation in the region that is happy (and more secure) now that he is gone. And as a result we are seeing the Israel/Palestinian situation moving away from stalemate. That's called "two birds with one stone".
Now, that's changing the point.
You were the one bringing up "propaganda", as if to imply that Saddam was a little angel. You simply chose to focus on the Kurds, and I was just pointing to other evidence of Saddam's genocidal tendencies. Destroying an entire culture's home and the environment from which they achieve subsistence is certainly genocidal. Clearly a valid comparision to Hitler, no?
Which is why the US acting against the UN's wishes not only violated international law, but very specifically violated resolution 1441.
All this proves is that (a) The UN does not possess the ability to enforce its "laws", and (b) it does not possess the will to use it. As these are the two main ingredients for a hegemon, this should expose the inability of the UN to be a truly influential body in world affairs. Maybe you'd like to propose an effort in the UK to offer the UN property in your country, as I am sick of them squatting on US soil.
There were more than two options: allow Saddam to do what he wants or invade and depose him from his throne.
So let's take this line of reasoning a little further: What were these options you refer to (and I am talking ones that would be effective, not passing more useless resolutions)? Beyond this, who was going to implement these options? And the BIG question (since the US usually foots the bill for most dirty work in the world) who was going to PAY for those options to be executed?
"Action" does not equal "the correct action".
I never said it was....and by "correct" you are again referring to "right" or "wrong", and we all know that is subjective. However, it is quite clear to me that INaction is certainly not "correct" in that it does not solve the problem. Let's not forget that it was European INaction that caused two wars to get out of hand.
The only way the court can have legitimacy is if the rest of the world allows it to.
And this is where you ignore the concept of sovereign democracy, where legitimacy is bestowed by the governed. The world has no say, the people of Iraq have the say in this case. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a majority of people in Iraq that do not think the court is legitimate in its prosecution of Saddam. Would you tell me that "the world" can bestow or deny legitimacy of a US court?
No, the question is why was Saddam more pressing than every other dictator in the world at that point? So pressing, in fact, that the US couldn't wait one more month while the weapons inspectors did their job. Remember that? It was of so much importance that it simply couldn't wait at all.
1) I explained why above (Two birds with one stone...actually,
THREE birds when you consider that we sent a powerful message to the terrorists on the Arab street, and their governmental sponsors).
2) Not sure if you have ever studied military operations, but I have as part of what I do for some of my work. There are MANY factors that enter into the timetables for military operations tempos. In this case, it was quite clear that Saddam was stalling, because he knew we did not wish to prosecute the bulk of that war in the heat & sandstorms of the desert summer. George Bush was actually extolling nothing more than good military planning when he used the words "...at a time and place of our choosing."
3) As much as some in the world do not like it, we are the world's police force. That means we set the timetable for military ops. The same was true in your country's history when they were the world power. That's just the way it is. At this point, the only people in the world who have to worry are those who terrorize and those who support terrorists.
RMT
