I have a question about the Iraq war for all of you guys...

[battleknight24]

If weapons of mass destruction were not an issue, if we knew that they weren't there, but we knew to a reasonable certainty that Saddam and his people imprisoned, tortured, and murdered lots and lots of innocent people, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq?

The bigger question is, what is the standard for intervention by another country? When should another country intervene?


Peace,

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. When the Genocide Convention is called upon

unfortunately intervening in the internal affairs of any nation is very hard to do.

[Scooter24]

2. No. At least not unilaterally.

This is exactly the type of decision the UN was designed to make.

[KitchenWitch]

3. My opinion is...

The whole thing had nothing to do with WMDs, imminent threat, infringement upon human rights. It had everything to do with oil, and whether companies such as Haliburton would profit.

If it were about human rights, there are several places we could have gone, a lot longer ago than Iraq.

My own personal standards for invading another country can be summed up in one statement. We only invade another country if we have been attacked by THAT country.

[autorank]

4. I have a question for you.

If there were no WMD's; if there were people imprisoned, tortured and murdered; and if 4-6 million of the people in Iraq possessed automatic weapons: was there any reason in the world to "rescue" these people.

I don't think we should invade countries that are not threatening us unless it's a Kosovo type situation.

What strikes me is that Iraqis have a fondness for automatic weapons, as I understand it. If they had all that hardware, when does it become their duty to free themselves?

[bluestateguy]

5. Saddam was their dictator, and their responsibility to depose. Not ours.

If he's not a threat to the United States, and for that matter, is not a threat to invade any other country, then the responsibility of getting rid of him is that of the Iraqi people. No one else's.

And I would wish them well; send them a box of chocolates for good luck. I would root for them to succeed, but he was their problem, not ours.

[CanuckAmok]

6. There had to be an issue of WMDs or some other distraction...

Merely imprisoning, torturing and murdering innocent people has not historically proven to be a reason for US intervention. There are dozens of tinpot dictators throughout the world -- most installed by the West -- currently doing what Hussein did, and worse, and we tolerate this behaviour because there's an advantage (usually economic) for us to do so.

The House of Saud is one of the most oppressive and oligarchic regeimes in history, but we don't seem to find cause to step in and end the beheading and stoning of Saudi citizens, do we?

[punpirate]

7. The primary consideration in this...

... is that international law forbids war for the purposes of regime change.

That's why Bush couldn't get his follow-on approval for invasion from the Security Council. They knew that the evidence was thin, at best, and that inspectors on the ground could take care of WMDs. That's why Bush went ahead and did it without UN resolution.

Now, given the circumstances of the past two years, is it any more moral for Bush to have engaged in an invasion of another country for illegal purposes and then proceeded to imprison, torture, and murder lots and lots of innocent people?

Cheers.

[Floogeldy]

8. WMD was the issue. Remember?

If the U.S. applied the standard of "saving tortured people," then we would have invaded after Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1983.

The "standard" is international law, which commands that a country not be invaded except in the case of self defense, unless it is sanctioned under international treaties, like the UN.

Bush is a war criminal.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. When should another country intervene?

.
.
.

When there is obvious danger - like flying bullets or an invading army

NOT

at the claimed suspicions of some delusional paranoid nation

The only reason the USA got away with this is because they HAVE the "big guns" so to speak

NOT because they were justified

This war was about big business, money and oil

NONE of Iraq's neighbours were worried about Iraq's invisible WMD's

and if abusive leaders was justification (which it is not IMO) the US should be all over Africa and a few others - but alas - they don't have the oil that the USA so desperately needs . . .

hmmm :freak:

[jmcon007]

10. I would not have.

The very reason they lied about WMDs was to try and get the UN Security Council to go along for some legitimacy, but the UN won't go along unless there is proof that a country is being threatened. That's just abiding by U.N. law that the U.S. helped write and signed onto.
People say "We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves". I agree with that, but the key is to "defend ourselves". There was no threat at all to us and they knew it.
Beyond the war and the tens of thousands killed for a lie, Bush has big problems. He took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution", but when he decided to unilaterally go to war against Iraq, he broke his oath of office. How? The Constitution explicitly binds the President and the country to honor international treaties, etc. that have been approved by a US Congress and signed by a US President.
Like so many other laws he has ignored since he was a punk in college, the Constitution doesn't carry any more weight to him than a speeding law.

[battleknight24]

11. Hold on a second... let me clarify something...

I am not saying that I supported the invasion of Iraq.

What I am trying to figure out and analyze is when, if ever, should a country our countries when there are civil and ethnic conflicts in other countries?

Should it be only when their own country's freedom and safety is at stake?

Should it be whenever such a conflict has the potential to destabilize a larger, wider region?

Should it be only when a genocide is occuring?

I'm not trying to say that the US invasion of Iraq was right.


Peace,

[Floogeldy]

12. I've given you the answer

The standard is set forth in international treaties. A country can only invade another country if it is in self defense, UNLESS the appropriate countries agree according to treaty, as the UN Charter, Nuremberg Treaty, and NATO.

It's not rocket science.

[huellewig]

19. Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that we do have to sometimes get involved to protect oppressed people. Protection. That is all. Permanent military bases? No. Iraq is a non-issue in this.



I support helping in Darfur. And I think the UN should dictate the location of our troops to help people in need (and no I would not support them telling our troops to kick the land mine). Don't we still get a vote in the UN?

"Should it be only when their own country's freedom and safety is at stake?"

I don't think so: But I would still argue 99% of the bullets fired by our troops are not for the freedom and safety of The United States of North America. Shock and Awe wasn't about Baghdad. It was a lesson to others not to be the next Baghdad. Fear...

[BrotherBuzz]

13. People imprisoned, tortured, and murdered?

Maybe we should have invaded Uzbekistan. Oh, I forgot, Bush* support dictators if they are good ones. What's that I hear about boiled in oil?.

[MrSlayer]

14. If the motives were pristine and we had the full support of the world...

then yes. But I also think Iraq should have been way down the list of countries that needed intervention. It's hard, considering our history, to not want to help those who want to get out from under the thumb of tyranny. The Iraqis did not ask us to intervene on their behalf nor did they rise up against Saddam and need our support in their revolution. If we truly had nothing but good intentions as far as using our military we'd have been involved in Africa and the various broken ex-Soviet republics long before Iraq.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

16. Saddam was a bad guy that we supported

There are many more. How can we support someone when they do our bidding and not support them when they don't. They didn't change, we did. We as Americans have to learn the truth. The truth will set us free. A bad guy, is a bad guy. It doesn't matter whether they give us what we want or not. Our government has put us in the position of ambiguity.

The Balkans was a different tiger, as Rhonda and Sudan. The US will not do the right thing, unless it is in our best interest. Perhaps, we need to really re-think our best interests, because the number of those that hate us are greater than those that don't.

Those that don't dislike us have the money, those do have the over whelming numbers. Iraq has taught us money matters, but not as much as numbers. We can take on 1,2 maybe 3 coutures, but not the world.

I think we are in decline, because of our arrogance, and we as a county deserve it.

[MrSlayer]

17. I agree.

Greed before everything is a poor foreign policy.

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. "I think we are in decline, because of our arrogance" sadly correct

.
.
.

AS a Canuk who planned on retiring in the United States, but will now not cross that border for anything - I agree

The United States may be pushing it's power thing all over the world - but is losing BILLIONS of hearts and minds around the globe.

I have chat friends from around the world that literally despise the US for its behavior as the self appointed "police of the world"

And us Canuks have been dealt Billion Dollar penalties for not supporting the American Illegal invasion of Iraq - but we are now seeking to market our steel, lumber, beef, and yes - OIL to other countries that won't cut us off in an immature fit -

United States in my mind is no longer our most reliable trading parter

They will use our trade agreements to try to force us to do their will - we know that now with no doubt.

Our ministries are actively, and successfully creating markets in Asia and Europe for products mostly aimed for the US -

The US has proved to be an unreliable and vindictive customer -

and we ain't 'tupid!!

We's moving on!

[Guaranteed]

15. Not with the Chimp as our president. nt

[B Calm]

18. Operation Iraq Liberation

What's That Spell?

Operation
Iraq
Liberation

[I_Make_Mistakes]

21. Sad but true

I am a Christian, and will gleefully espouse that, but some how, as with all the powers, God makes Good. The US, for less years than I know, have been trying to assert herself in the world. You have to realize, that, we did not know the horrors, they perpetrated on us.

Somewhere, in the back of my head, I hear trust the gov. they will take care of you. I don't know if this gov or parental, but, I know it is lies.

But, if you listen to your heart, you will actually, hear GOD, and that is the most important thing.

[ET Awful]

22. Imprisoned, tortured and murdered lots of innocent people?

Hell, the more things change, the more they stay the same eh?

No, I would not have supported an invasion.

[tjwmason]

23. Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Sudan

The list of oppresive regimes is long, yet the focus has been pushed to one thus excluding the others.

If Humanitarian Intervention is morally right, then why are U.S. forces (with that subset thereof under Poodleboy Blair) not in the Matabeleland, in Harare and all of the other places where ZANU-PF uses starvation and rape as election tactics?

What about Darfur, and before that the attacks on the animists and Christians in the south of Sudan.

What about Saudi Arabia where men and women are not even allowed to spend time with each other.

Focus was made on Iraq, which has pushed these countries (and the others mentioned elsewhere on this thread) to the side-lines. In some cases, has even lead to more support being given to them (allies in the W.o.T.).