@F_alk:
That is not exactly what i say:
The difference is between fighting terrorism, and fighting others where terrorists see themselves affirmed in the “rightfulness” of their deeds and therefore have the possibility to gain support from “their” people.
Fighting terrorism as a whole needs fighting the actual terrorists and fighitng the circumstances that let others become terrorists, if you forget the second, you will fight forever.
I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism–that is nations like Iraq–is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. The way I see it (and this is speaking purely from my own experience in the world), most people are not capable of offensive killing or especially suicide attacks unless they are whipped into religious or quasi-religious fervor or are heavily trained. However, a few such individuals can accomplish much when supported by a great mass of people who while not “bloodthirsty” in a personal way, sympathize with the supposed “cause” of the bloodthirsty. I think that is what you are seeing in the Middle East today–a (relatively) few hate-mongers who are only able to do what they do because of the degree of popular support for their actions. These masses could hopefully be swayed by increased care and education about the good things about the West–combine that with hunting out the relatively few “killers” and you might be onto something.
But the one cannot work without the other.
Hmm, i have heard that even US companies sold weapons during the embargo.
One thing that you didn’t mention in the above reasoning was inspections (wether combined with threat of force or not). And still, we are lacking any proof for the WMDs that Saddam Hussein should have. (btw, if there was proof that he has them, why is it then so difficult to locate them, once the existance is “proven”? Why were the UN-inspectors so utterly disappointed by the material given from the US agencies (leading to two or three “minor” hits on Iraqs weaponry in general)?)
So, taking this into account, i do not see more than two reasons why the invasion had to be done: humanitarian action and oil.
For cooperations selling weapons during the embargo: You know that i am no friend of capitalism, and this is just purest capitalism: The embargo promised huge profits, well illegal, but huge…. Can you blame people just for “overdoing” something good like capitalism ;)? With the “trickle-down”-effect, some of that money should have reached the lower levels, and everyone should be happy ;) :)?
Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun–either through the immediate implementation of military strikes, or the threat thereof. Thus: force is the only stimulus Hussein responds to. Without force, or the threat of force, the UN inspectors were playthings for Hussein–he could force them out, prevaricate, lie, delay, blow smoke or what have you and the UN could do nothing realistic about it. By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack. I hear:“Give the inspections time to work.” Forget about the 12 years they were already given to work–what exactly would constitute proof the inspections were “working” or “not working”? A few demolished missiles proves its working? The discovery of missiles supposedly nonexistent proves the inspections are not working? What…
Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.
Even with the whole industrialized world the ground would be as fertile i fear. And as you might have noticed, i disagree strongly with the automatism towards war. It is a poor sign though, that the one side who was about to “lose” in the UN didn’t try harder (beforehand) to convince (not with sugar and whip) members of the other side, but once the “defeat” was inevitable took action, stubbornly claiming they were “right”….
To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are. I didn’t hear any of you crying over the estimated 3,000,000 people who have been executed in Iraq since 1968, any more than we were. Now a few hundred killed in a productive action & everyone’s up in arms. Not trying to belittle human life here–1 life lost is a tragedy–just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder since it was not backed by credible information. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it could & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, WAR. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper. Please explain to me under what circumstances (besides Iraq invading another power) Europe would have been willing to fight–that is before the Coalition attack.
Ozone27
