Some legal and moral issues...

[kark_1999]

I'm knew to this site, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. I haven't read any critical discussion of this illegal invasion, so I feel I have to bring up some important issues.

1) This "war" is illegal. This is no big secret, as Bush showed his contempt for international law when he stated that the UN was either with him or "irrelevant". He originally stated that UN resolution 1441 gave the U.S. the authority to attack Iraq. However, article 14 of that resolution states that the U.N. will remain "seized of the matter". This means that only the council can decide on military action, not the U.S. alone.

2) Iraq was hardly a threat to Kuwait anymore, never mind the U.S. To claim that this was an act of self-defense is absurd. We should attack every country that has a high-school biology lab, since they have the potential to create WMD and distribute them to terrorists. You can never guarantee that a huge country is completely free of WMD, but according to the inspectors (prior to their getting kicked out by the U.S.), Iraq was in compliance.

3) To claim that the the motivation is to free the Iraqi people can easily be dismissed after looking at the U.S.'s current and historical foreign policy. One needn't look further than Saddam himself when looking for a great example. Saddam was our friend in the 80's. The U.S. supported him when he was the same madman dictator that he is now. The U.S. supported him when he used WMD against Iran and his own people. He became our enemy when he misbehaved and invaded the oil-rich nation of Kuwait without our permission. If we were truly interested in supporting democracy for other countries, we would stop supporting brutal dictators and goverments with horrible human rights violations.

4) This invasion is hardly going to make the world more safe for Americans. It's hasn't been explained how invading a country for reasons of power an oil will create a climate other than one of increased terrorism. Even Bin Laden, Saddam's enemy, offered a glimmer of theoretical support when it was clear that Iraq was going to be invaded despite their compliance with 1441. If you think the world hated us before, now they have another reason.

This is hardly an exhaustive list of some of the major legal and moral issues surrounding the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq. Please feel free to address the above issues, and add others.

Note, before this turns into a flame war, I feel like I am obliged, under the current political climate, to note that I completely support our troops. I want them to return home alive to their families. They are just following orders, and it is our responsibility to make sure they are in harm's way for valid reasons. In my opinion they are not. Bring them home, now.

[Rick_EE]

This has been over quite a bit.

Please read this article, by a fellow in the Village Voice.  (not exactly Fox News)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

 

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by Rick Densing
This has been over quite a bit.

Please read this article, by a fellow in the Village Voice.  (not exactly Fox News)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

 

I'll read this article later. However, do you have anything to add?

[Nick]

welcome, kark, :hi: and get ready for a debate. :)

[Rick_EE]

Read the article, is sums up may main view.
You haven't said anything that has not been said before.

[toenail]

Originally posted by kark_1999
To claim that the the motivation is to free the Iraqi people can easily be dismissed after looking at the U.S.'s current and historical foreign policy. One needn't look further than Saddam himself when looking for a great example. Saddam was our friend in the 80's. The U.S. supported him when he was the same madman dictator that he is now. The U.S. supported him when he used WMD against Iran and his own people. He became our enemy when he misbehaved and invaded the oil-rich nation of Kuwait without our permission. If we were truly interested in supporting democracy for other countries, we would stop supporting brutal dictators and goverments with horrible human rights violations.



The responders to your message are right-- these topics have been discussed ad nauseum here. However, my response to paragraph 3 may be a little different than some. My response to what you say is: so what? A number of people, myself included, have been upset for a long time that the U.S. has on occasion supported brutal dictators. For a long time I've wanted us to remove, not support, them. Now we are finally doing so. So I should be uspet?? Hardly. May this only be the beginning.

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by toenail
The responders to your message are right-- these topics have been discussed ad nauseum here.

Ok. My apologies.

However, my response to paragraph 3 may be a little different than some. My response to what you say is: so what? A number of people, myself included, have been upset for a long time that the U.S. has on occasion supported brutal dictators. For a long time I've wanted us to remove, not support, them. Now we are finally doing so. So I should be uspet?? Hardly. May this only be the beginning.

I think that what causes most people to laugh at the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is the pure hypocrisy of it. Bush's argument that this is not about oil, but about freeing the Iraqi people is just ridiculous. So, are you saying that Bush is willing to sacrifice the lives of U.S. troops, blow $74+ billion dollars, violate international law, and destroy our chances of ever being seen as anything but a rogue state bully - just because he wants to free the poor Iraqi people from Saddamn? And, it just happens to be that they are sitting on 25% of the world's oil reserves. This, you say, is going to be the start of a new U.S. foreign policy that is involved in humanitarian freedom missions? I'm not sure I agree.

[James_F]

Of course not. I don't think we'll see this type of operation liberate those in the Congo. :rolleyes: This is about one thing as you said OIL. The middle east is important for their export.

[cooper]

So what if this war is really about oil (I personally don't think it is). Would anybody disagree that a lack of a steady oil supply is a clear and present danger to the US? Except for freedom and the physical safety of our citizens, oil is probably the single most important substace on the face of this planet. Without it, nothing takes place. No fuel for farmer's equipment. No fuel for trucks to ship and deliver food. No lubricants for machinery in heavy industry, etc., etc. In short nothing lives, everybody dies and the survivors go back to the stone age. Does that sound like the type of thing you want controled by a brutal dictator who slaughters his own people. Or do you want a friendly gov't that's willing to work and trade with the rest of the world?

[James_F]

I understand Oil is very important to our economy. Japan expanded before WWII because of their lack of oil. I'm not saying that we should do the same, nor do I think we will occupy Iraq to make it our personal oil stash, BUT don't hide behind the word "democracy" if you don't mean it.

[cooper]

You got a point and I have no answer for that. I guess I'm just blowing off steam after having to deal with peace protesters over the last two weeks screaming "No blood for oil" in my face while refusing to stay behind my barricades.:nono:

[James_F]

I don't condone that. Respect has to be earned and I think almost all police and firemen have earned it.

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by James_F
I understand Oil is very important to our economy. Japan expanded before WWII because of their lack of oil. I'm not saying that we should do the same, nor do I think we will occupy Iraq to make it our personal oil stash, BUT don't hide behind the word "democracy" if you don't mean it.

I agree that the "democracy" claim is pretty ridiculous, but I want to comment on the occupation question. While it's difficult to see exactly how this nightmare is going to turn out, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that the U.S. is going to go the route of installing someone from Iraq who will play the obedient-to-Washington role. Whether it's run by Tommy Franks or by a guy named Mohammed, who was installed by the U.S., it was still an invasion and practical occupation. The U.S. loves installing puppet regimes. Just think of the sweet deals on oil we would get.

[Danny R]

This "war" is illegal... This means that only the council can decide on military action, not the U.S. alone.

Only the council can decide military action ON BEHALF OF THE UN. The US is no longer acting on their behalf and is not wearing UN colors in the field, but pursuing the war for its own purposes.

Before the war is defined as illegal, you'll have to have the UN specifically condemn the US for attacking. To date it has not (and technically can not since the US can veto any such resolution, just as France and Russia threatened to veto the war resolution), therefore it can be said the UN by default supports the war.

but according to the inspectors (prior to their getting kicked out by the U.S.), Iraq was in compliance.

You are very mistaken. Blix says at best says Iraq's actions "very limited" (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html). Partial complaince is not the same as full compliance, which Iraq should have been in. And it was only at the threat of war that Iraq complied as much as they did.

Otherwise I agree with your other points. I think the public excuses given for the war (WMD, human rights) are just sound bites. Bush wanted a war, and Saddam was an easy scape goat.

This is about one thing as you said OIL.

Iraq was already exporting most of their oil to the US. War only limits the production of oil, and doesn't give the US any further control of it. Its not about oil.

War is necessary for our defense industry. There is little call to build cruise missiles, jets or bombs when they are not being fired at anyone. Likewise Bush wants his own legacy, and the Iraq war is his path to one as he hopes to be able to fix his father's mess.

[cooper]

Who do you think the Iraqi people would prefer. A puppet US regime who will rebuild the country's infrastructure or the "Butcher of Bahgdad" who pockets all the profits?

[James_F]

Originally posted by cooper
Who do you think the Iraqi people would prefer. A puppet US regime who will rebuild the country's infrastructure or the "Butcher of Bahgdad" who pockets all the profits? Judging from their actions today. It looks like Saddam. Maybe its the "But at least he is our dictator" mentality. Who knows. I don't want to be the worlds policeman.

[James_F]

Yea we can post all we want about Blix, but even he said he felt that we should give them more time.

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by cooper
Who do you think the Iraqi people would prefer. A puppet US regime who will rebuild the country's infrastructure or the "Butcher of Bahgdad" who pockets all the profits?

It appears that the Iraqi people would prefer Saddam. Wouldn't you?

[cooper]

I don't even know how to respond to that.:confused:

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by cooper
I don't even know how to respond to that.:confused:

What I'm saying is this....

Many people look at the last U.S. election as a fraud, with Bush being installed by the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote. What if some country to free us so we could have a functioning democracy? (ok, I know this analogy is pretty week, but you know what I'm getting at here.) Would the U.S. population welcome the invaders who are bombing the crap out of us? I doubt it.

It appears that the people of Iraq believe that Saddam is their problem - not the problem of the oil-hungry United States. People will clearly get behind Saddam when they have a common enemy invader.

[cooper]

In America we don't have a secret police that threatens the population to support W or risk being tortured, killed and have your wife and daughters raped.

[kark_1999]

Originally posted by cooper
In America we don't have a secret police that threatens the population to support W or risk being tortured, killed and have your wife and daughters raped.

Well, I'll take issue with the "secret police" (read: Patriot Act I + II), but sure - of course we don't have the same society. Saddam is a madman nightmare. Who disagrees with that? Well, I'm sure that there is a part of the Iraqi population that remembers how the U.S. supported Saddam in the late 80's. They may also be aware of how the U.S. essentially protected Saddam from a Shiite coup following the gulf war in 91.

The U.S.'s foreign policy record is not a good one. People outside of the U.S. are aware of that. They have also lived under a decade of murderous sanctions. They know who is responsible for such things.

[Mike123abc]

Well soon it will come down to "who cares". It appears that soon the US will be running everything in Iraq. We occupied Japan for about 5-6 years and we occupied German for about 9 years.

It is said history is written by the victor. Before long this will be just a minor footnote of a war. And a minor footnote if it is even mentioned will be what the UN thought about it. The only way it will be remembered is if we bring peace to the middle east or we lose. I am not too optimistic about peace in the middle east, thousands of years of bad blood is not fixed by a single war.

The morality and questions like that seem important now, but in a couple months most will be view as minor importance, and a few years from now it will not even be a factor.

[RandyAB]

Originally posted by kark_1999


It appears that the Iraqi people would prefer Saddam. Wouldn't you?

I disagree with you that the Iraqi's would like Saddam as their leader over us. It sounds like they are more afraid that US and British forces will not finish the job, that is why they have not rised against the pre-Saddam forces.

If the people were really against us you would see the 20 million plus people fight against the coalition. But you do not see that happening. Instead you see how once the coaltion gets control of each city, you see how the people support the troops.

[Rick_EE]

Of course we would no be there if there were no oil. But it is not the only reason. Anyone who says "no blood for oil" and rides in a car is a hypocrite. We have decided as a society that being able to drive is worth the lives of 2600 children and another 40,000 adults each year in this country. Anyone who rides in a car or bus has blood on their hands.

I have not seen any evidence that the people would prefer Saddam. The indications are that they are still afraid of his secret police.

To equate the patriot act with Saddam's secre police is simply naive.

[toenail]

Well, I see we have more debate over what the war is "about." As I mentioned weeks ago, determining what the war is "about" is dependant on whom you are asking. Generally, when critics say the war is "about" oil, they are saying that the people making the decisions about going to war are doing it because of oil. And guess what? That conclusion is mere speculation. I've never heard any of our leaders say that the war is "about" oil. People who don't like Bush assume the worst. Those who like him tend to assume the best, and that his reasons are more noble. My guess is that it is a combination of many reasons, including the noble and ignoble.

But that's only part of the equation. Equally important is, what is the war "about" to the rest of us? We, after all, are "the people" in a democracy. And what about the soldiers who are fighting the war? What is it "about" to them? My guess is that the vast majority of them believe they are fighting for much more than just oil, and certainly for much more than lining the pockets of major defense firms. Likewise, the war for me is about much more than that. Perhaps it may be pollyannish of me to hope that the people of Iraq will ultimately benefit from this mess. But that's my hope, and my belief. So for me and many others, the war is not "about" oil. So, I respectfully dissent from that view.

[Jacob S]

Maybe they have lived on fear for so many years that they were brainwashed in a sense on that they HAVE to like Sadaam and just seem comfortable with the thought of him being ruler of that country since he has been there so long and know it no other way and do not know what it is like to have it any other way.

Maybe we are there for the oil and just had an excuse to get in there to help the economy and get gas prices down and another excuse to cover it up to be Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Maybe what I said above is not the truth, but just thoughts of a possibility, not saying that those are my exact opinions because I dont want to get flamed.

Also if other countries started asking for our help that are under rule like Iraq would we be expected to help them by doing the same for them since we did it for Iraq?