h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Quite blatantly Saddam's atrocities should have been dealt with. As should a handful of other tinpot despots in recent times who have murdered, stolen, and cheated. The point is, that wasn't the reason Bush gave. He said it was for WMD and terrorists. WMD were not found and Blix said they wouldn't be. The CIA said there would be but they haven't been right for a few decades. If Bush claims that he was duped by his own underlings, I could almost believe him. Considering that a recent ex-member of his cabinet described his meetings as as communicative as a blind man with a group of deaf people. As to terrorists the same applies, it seems. So it wasn't the US's fault that they invaded Iraq. It was an administrative error? Sort of a reverse *I was only following orders?* Convenient.

How do you feel about international law? Is the UN merely a modern League of Nations and not worth considering? What are your feelings about fixing the problem? Best to ignore it and just decided what you believe in is best for the other 90% of the world's population?

I think it is wrong to let anyone get away with despotism. The WMD issue is going to be a thorn in Bush's side for a while. The CIA is a funny organization. Think about it like your hot water heater. You never think about it when it works, only when it doesn't. For them the world viewing them as incompetent makes their job easier, if less prestigious.

We have gone round in circles about international law. The UN is a diplomatic body not a legislative. It is wonderful at conducting relief and humanitarian missions, not so good with military. It has no teeth as it is too easy to veto and there are also plenty of tinpot despots with seats in the UN. It is a wonderful forum for conflict resolution when diplomacy has not utterly failed. After which it should be up to NATO or other coalitions. The war was not "illegal" as the UN does not have to sanction a war. As long as it was fought according to Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare, then there has been no illegal actions. The US is stringent about obeying the laws of war and will court martial its own in a heartbeat for crimes such as theft or the endangerment of civilians or pows.

As to despots we agree. My point, however was what made Saddam special enough to warrant the invasion? Other despots have been allowed to coexist. Even ones who have more proof against them as terrorists, like Quadafi. Given that Hussein's genocide and brutal rule was not exceptional in recent history, why was he chosen?

The UN is in fact a terrible military force. It was meant to be that way. I merely wondered why the full range of inspections and diplomacy was halted by invasion before it had completed. The excuses Bush gave were specious, we have discovered that. No WMD, no connection to terrorism. To trot out that he was a brutal dictator seems a poor cover up given that there are several brutal dictators of various skin colours having their way with their population as we type. *Diplomacy..utterly failed*- shouldn't that be the decision of the UN rather than the US? Mr. Blix, Mr. Annan, and others hadn't decided that there was only a military option left, how did Bush come to that conclusion? I've never said the invasion was illegal, just that it was based on deceit, internal politics, and a hidden agenda. I've never said that the invasion might not have been the correct action (although I tend to think it wasn't), just that it shouldn't have been the US's decision alone.

let me attempt an analogy. My boss when I worked at Kodak thought that when they caught Clinton lying about Monaca Lewinski, it was trivial, but that Clinton had done illegal things (whitewater etc.) and that maybe they got him for the wrong reasons, but at least they got him. At the time he made the analogy to Al capone, who got busted for tax evasion, which was arguably the least heinous of his crimes.

I think there are a lot of people in the US who think that the war in Iraq had to be done, even though Bush did it for the wrong reasons. Same idea as above, and actually the same political party carrying it out.

disclaimer: I disagree totally with my boss from Kodak about clinton - I don't think there was anything to whitewater or anything else corrupt like that. I'm just using it as an example of a republican explaining his logic to me.

On a side note, I think its a really bad sign when people within a government "know the right thing to do" and then decide to bend and break the established rules to do it. From what I've read that seems to be a slippery slope that lead to the end of Rome.

dave

IMHO, I believe the *WWWA* and *S/B* threads are about frustration. Some of the rest of the world don't like the active role and international decision making policies the US has taken upon itself to impliment. I think any individual in any other country, large or small liked the idea of the UN making the decisions, flawed or not. Just as democracy can create the wrong policy, individuals there can take comfort in the fact that at least it was based on a consensus. The League of Nations fell apart because it had problems, but mostly because it was ignored. I hate to think that rather than fix the problems it has developed, the UN would be abandoned.
Without doubt, the first thing that has to go is the Security Council, a Cold War remnant that has no place in this century. As I said, just IMHO.

Put CL, the point is that US did not "go it alone" there were 37 nations involoved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The UN does not prohibit a nation to go to war. As a twisted analogy I will use divorce. Well, divorce-war. I found war was easier. You go to a mediator (UN) first. You bicker back and forth. If you cannot settle your differences then your only recourse is to go to court (war) and fight it out.
I like the way the UN runs more or less. I think it should be in place for the cooperation of nations and for implementing aid and disastor relief. I think that when diplomacy no longer works than the war aspects should be left to the beligerant nations.

I can relate.....

I see your point, I suppose that it was the lack of WMD and terrorists that make people elsewhere in the world frustrated. It's like saying *Diplomacy is failing, so we are taking action. We must do this because of A and B.* Then after the conflict A and B are no where to be seen. You can't expect people on the sidelines to not get upset, especially when they said the existence of A and B hadn't been proven at the beginning. All well and good to take the initiative, but you only fuel people's fears of future rogue actions and unjustified death when the initial premise is flawed.

True, but what can you do now? Saddam would not offer proof that he was in compliance. We went in legally (I think that I might just score with that last post on the Iraq board) and with good faith