Jail Bush and Blair

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

Keep leaning on him and encourage elements within Iraq against him.

Well, given the length of time he was in power that strategy wasn't panning out too well was it?
Would you ever support a country making a unilateral decision to go in to another to right a wrong? For example, pragmatism aside, was there a case for the republic to "invade" NI to protect the Catholic community in 1969?

whynotwhycanti

The reason he was in power for so long was because he was orginally supported and financed by the US. There were many groups inside Iraq who oppossed him, but they were not supported by the US. The gas he used to murder the Kurds, was that not supllied by some western ally?

You are right though, if the US and ourselves want to continue on this glorious path of prosperity and civilisation, and to consume the majority of the worlds energy, food and resources, the US will have to continue invading countries, pillaging resources and killing civilians so we can, as you so nicely put it, continue to live the way we do.

lugha

the saint 2 wrote: »

So would you care to comment on it now? Is an act of aggression a war crime under international law?

Oddly enough, I wouldn’t! I don’t think you quite have the hang of this discussion forum malarkey. Here’s how it works. Everyone can offer their view, and if disagree or find a flaw with their expressed view, you rebut it, then they respond and so on. Demanding that they defend a viewpoint that they haven’t made won’t do.
Anyway, all of this war crimes / international law stuff a red herring. I remember the first Gulf war when the UN did legitimise action against Saddam. The anti-US brigade couldn’t wheel out their touching concern for the integrity of international law but still weren’t short of criticisms.

whynotwhycanti

Wow, i always thought interantional law was pretty important, thanks for clearing it up that is a load of unimportant sh^^e, won't have to bother with it from now on.

First gulf war, completely different situation, Iraq invaded KUwait. Second gulf war, we're told Iraq have wmds and could attack 'us' at anytime. In hindsight, this was wrong as no wmds, no programme for wmds found. Either the war was based on misinforamtion or lies. I never had issue with first gulf war, from the off had serious problems with the invasion of Iraq, and hindsight has proven that my concerns with invasion were well founded. Hindsight unfortunately has not provided you with the gift of hindsight. I guess some people are too stubborn and ignorant.

lugha

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

The reason he was in power for so long was because he was orginally supported and financed by the US.

Yes he was. In the black and white Hollywood movie world there are the good guys and the bad guys but in the murky real world, often there are the bad guys and much worse guys. We don’t have to trouble ourselves with such moral dilemmas but sometimes very unpalatable pragmatic decisions need to be made.

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

You are right though, if the US and ourselves want to continue on this glorious path of prosperity and civilisation, and to consume the majority of the worlds energy, food and resources, the US will have to continue invading countries, pillaging resources and killing civilians so we can, as you so nicely put it, continue to live the way we do.

If you really do think that “invading countries, pillaging resources and killing civilians” is necessary to sustain our way of life, you can always make a principled stand and have no truck with the decadent excesses of the West.

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Hindsight unfortunately has not provided you with the gift of hindsight.

I am sure that makes sense to you :rolleyes:

SLUSK

You guys who said it was right to overthrow the regime in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a dictator, do you also think that the Americans should go in guns blazing and "liberate" Saudi Arabia as well? Or what about China?

Should the US have the right to attack any country it pleases as long as it is a dictatorship?

whynotwhycanti

Well you seem a bit slow to understand the last part of my post which is not surprising having read the previous drivel you have been spouting i.e. international law is not important, saddam COULD have attacked us in the future. Let me spoon feed it to you.

There is an enquiry taking place in the UK to understand the premise for the war and whether it was just. The basis for the war, as has been shown was either lies or misinformation and was thereafter illegal. Even after all of this has come out, after 200,000 - 600,000 innocent Iraqis lost their lives, you are still trying to defend the war and its reasons. You could be forgiven for having this viewpoint prior to the invasion, but hindsight has shown what an absolute mess and mistake it was to invade Iraq. You however, still think it was a just cause to protect the way we live INCASE, he may have attacked us in the future. What I am saying is that even with hindsight, you are holding firm to your position, which has been proven, to be wrong. You think Iraq was about protecting you, I think it was about money and multi million dollar contacts awarded to US corporations, or maybe that was a by-product but people made a lot of money during this war and it wasn’t the Iraqis.

You have no idea what I do in my personal life to try and alleviate some of the pain and suffering caused by the western worlds foreign policy so please do not presume you do.

whynotwhycanti

lugha wrote: »

Yes he was. In the black and white Hollywood movie world there are the good guys and the bad guys but in the murky real world, often there are the bad guys and much worse guys. We don’t have to trouble ourselves with such moral dilemmas but sometimes very unpalatable pragmatic decisions need to be made.:rolleyes:

I hate to say it to you but Saddam was solely supported by the US and its allies for its own personal gain. It was not a pragmatic decision but one made for personal benefit. Once he wasn't playing ball with us anymore, he was the enemy. Can i ask you something, is it just pure coincidence that prior to the Iraq war, Saddam had said he will be selling oil in euro and the dollar would no longer be the reserve currencey. If he had been able to do that, it would have had pretty serious consequences for the US, globally but also within the area itself.

whynotwhycanti

SLUSK wrote: »

You guys who said it was right to overthrow the regime in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a dictator, do you also think that the Americans should go in guns blazing and "liberate" Saudi Arabia as well? Or what about China?

Should the US have the right to attack any country it pleases as long as it is a dictatorship?

According to some on here, it would appear that as long as these other dictators are playing ball, then no of course not. If though, these other dictators are no longer serving American 'interests', well then an illegal invasion of a nation state seems to be fine under the guise that they are a potential threat to our national security.


As an Irish man, i was sh**ting it about Saddam and what he might do to my precious way of life. I have to say, even with the hindsight that the invasion was illegal and based on lies and/or misinformation, with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people as a direct consequence, i maintain my view that if not now, sometime in the future he was coming for us and had to be taken out. I do not change my view in spite of the evidence. Bush and Blair are two of the noblest leaders who obviously had our security at heart, not the vested interests of corporations fighting to sign up multi-million dollar contracts as a direct result of the invasion.

Interesting fact, Tony Blair brought the UK into more wars than any other British prime minister before him. Couldn’t think of a better person to be promoting peace in the middle east.

lugha

You really should read what people write before you respond

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

The basis for the war, as has been shown was either lies or misinformation and was thereafter illegal.

I have never believed the presence of WMD was necessary to justify the removal of Saddam

lugha wrote:

From the moment I first heard reference to WMD I thought so what if there is or isn't. If they weren't there then it wasn't because Saddam was too moral to acquire or use them.

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

international law is not important

I did not say international law is not important, I said it did not have the integrity of domestic law.

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

you are still trying to defend the war

No I am not. I said anybody who threatens our way of life is free game, even if they are not the biggest or an immediate threat.

lugha wrote:

You can argue that Saddam was neither the biggest or even an immediate threat in 2003 although again I insist that he had the potential to be one. I certainly can recall him being more than a little uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors. Anyone who stands opposed to the West is fair game in my book, if only to serve as a warning to others.

Of course the war didn’t pan out very well. The removal of Saddam was one positive, or at least I think it was. But I will happily support anyone who acts to preserve our Western way of life, even if it involves doing unpalatable things. And of course the big players are acting in their own best interests. What would you expect them (or anyone else in the same position) to do??

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Well you seem a bit slow to understand the last part of my post which is not surprising having read the previous drivel you have been spouting

You might also read the rules of the forum re personal abuse.

MysticalRain

lugha wrote: »

No I am not. I said anybody who threatens our way of life is free game, even if they are not the biggest or an immediate threat.

You don't seriously believe that Saddam was real a threat to the US, and even if he was, the idea of sending 150,000 American troops to occupy a Muslim country wouldn't make things worse?

The Saint

lugha wrote: »

Oddly enough, I wouldn’t! I don’t think you quite have the hang of this discussion forum malarkey. Here’s how it works. Everyone can offer their view, and if disagree or find a flaw with their expressed view, you rebut it, then they respond and so on. Demanding that they defend a viewpoint that they haven’t made won’t do.
Anyway, all of this war crimes / international law stuff a red herring. I remember the first Gulf war when the UN did legitimise action against Saddam. The anti-US brigade couldn’t wheel out their touching concern for the integrity of international law but still weren’t short of criticisms.

I'm well aware of how a discussion works, thank you. However, you don't seem to want to answer a simple question which is all I'm asking from you. While now you might say that all this international law stuff and war crimes are a red herring, it was you that asked under what code of law a crime of aggression is a war crime. I pointed out a number of sources for it. I asked you if you conceded that a crime of aggression is a war crime and you don't want to answer it.

The 1991 Gulf War was legitimesed by a security council resolution and was therefore lawful. While many might disagree with the actions taken or how they were taken it is undeniable that under international law it was legitimate.

So once again, is a crime of aggression a war crime?

lugha

MysticalRain wrote: »

You don't seriously believe that Saddam was real a threat to the US, and even if he was, the idea of sending 150,000 American troops to occupy a Muslim country wouldn't make things worse?

Not in 2003 but I think he had the potential (why does everybody miss that word ) He had shown a willingness to use aggression against both his own people and his neighbours. He has a seasoned if somewhat depleted post 1991 army after the Iran Iraq war. We was regularly uncooperative with UN arms inspectors. He had the oil and hence the wealth. He had in the region, if not friends, enemies of his enemy. The comparisment has been dismissed here, but I think there are a lot of similarities with post WW I Germany.
So yes, I do think he had the potential. If you disagree, fine. But I think the focus on Iraq is a bit of a red herring. Many of those who now criticize the US and UK would have done so even if they did believe there was a credible threat. If WMD now miraculously turned up, you would not be getting a rush of people to change their mind. Their view is that all should abide by international law, even if that leads to a threat to our way of life. I disagree. Whether Saddam posed a real threat or not, is as I said, a red herring.

whynotwhycanti

You make an interesting point. Firstly, the invasion was based on the premise of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Subsequently, it has been proven beyond doubt he didn’t so the premise and reason for the invasion was wrong. Whether it was lies or misinformation is not the point, they invaded based upon a reason that did not stand. They knew this before the invasion, as they did not receive the support of the UN or some big countries e.g. France. My question is, do you still support the invasion based on these facts?

You have no problem with them doing ‘unpalatable’ things to preserve your way of life but there is no evidence to say that Saddam was a threat to your way of life. You can hypothesise that he could build weapons but that still cannot justify an illegal invasion that has killed thousands of innocent civilians. I believe he was no direct threat. The US had empowered him to unbelievable wealth and he was living a pretty luxurious life suppressing any potential uprising amongst his own people. There is absolutely no evidence to say he was going to attack the US or its allies so you can talk about hypothetical situations all you want but the facts speak differently. I am deeply ashamed that so many innocent people have been murdered and i think if we are going to be taking this pre-emptive action in the future we really have to look at ourselves and how we threat the values we try and promote.

Maybe though, he was going to infringe on our way of life by changing the currency for oil exports to the euro. Maybe this justified the invasion and the subsequent bloodshed. Also, those big players who you dismiss, there is another term for them, it is war profiteers.

lugha wrote: »

You might also read the rules of the forum re personal abuse.

Fair enough but it can get a tad bit tedious reading through four pages of posts where you debate the integrity of international law. The breaking of international law has been used in this thread to debate the illegality of the war and you have tried to underplay this hugely important fact. International law exists on its own as it covers issues that are not under the remit of domestic law i.e. invading a foreign nation state. It stands in its own right and its integrity is not open for debate here. It is a fundamental principle upon which nation states can co-exist. How can domestic law cover a country being invaded by another state? If you wish to debate international law I suggest you start a different thread as that is not being debated here.

MysticalRain

lugha wrote: »

Not in 2003 but I think he had the potential (why does everybody miss that word ) He had shown a willingness to use aggression against both his own people and his neighbours. He has a seasoned if somewhat depleted post 1991 army after the Iran Iraq war. We was regularly uncooperative with UN arms inspectors. He had the oil and hence the wealth. He had in the region, if not friends, enemies of his enemy. The comparisment has been dismissed here, but I think there are a lot of similarities with post WW I Germany.
So yes, I do think he had the potential. If you disagree, fine. But I think the focus on Iraq is a bit of a red herring.

People dind't buy the "potential threat" argument because the threat from Iraq was virtually non-existent. Saddam never had a history of supporting terrorism outside his own borders, or supporting the likes of Al Qaeda within it. His army was in tatters, and rebuilding it was an unlikely prospect given the sanctions against his country. There was simply no evidence of any mass scale WMD program in existence in 2003. There was simply no way Iraq could have been construed as a bigger threat to "our way of life" than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for example. Bush a Blair actually made the world less safe by ignoring the real and verifiable threats elsewhere and focusing on a non-existent one from Iraq instead. Why you appear to be completely blind to that fact, even with 20-20 hindsight, is a mystery to me.

Many of those who now criticize the US and UK would have done so even if they did believe there was a credible threat. If WMD now miraculously turned up, you would not be getting a rush of people to change their mind. Their view is that all should abide by international law, even if that leads to a threat to our way of life. I disagree. Whether Saddam posed a real threat or not, is as I said, a red herring.

That simply isn't true (as the historical record shows if you count the number of war protests and amount of opposition in the media). The fact is most people at the time, including critics of US foreign policy, put their misgivings aside and supported US actions in Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. The only people who didn't were be the far left and the most radical anti-war hippies. But they only represented about 5% of the critics of the Iraq war. So that criticism is largely irrelevant.

whynotwhycanti

lugha wrote: »

The comparisment has been dismissed here, but I think there are a lot of similarities with post WW I Germany.

It's fine if you think that but you really have to provide some evidence, you can't just simply say you think it is. I'll provide you with some evidence as to why I don't think they are at all comparable. Firstly, Saddam was a dictator, and Hitler was an elected official. Saddam suppressed his people and was busy trying to maintain control over his tyranny. Hitler was lauded by the people and created a military economy where he picked up the nation after WWI and created a mass ideology upon the germans taking back what was rightfully theirs. Since the gulf war, Iraq has been so different to what Germany was after WWI. I really and please provide evidence, cannot see your analogy.

lugha

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

It's fine if you think that but you really have to provide some evidence, you can't just simply say you think it is. I'll provide you with some evidence as to why I don't think they are at all comparable. Firstly, Saddam was a dictator, and Hitler was an elected official. Saddam suppressed his people and was busy trying to maintain control over his tyranny. Hitler was lauded by the people and created a military economy where he picked up the nation after WWI and created a mass ideology upon the germans taking back what was rightfully theirs. Since the gulf war, Iraq has been so different to what Germany was after WWI. I really and please provide evidence, cannot see your analogy.

I did point out the similarities in the post you quoted but you omitted them from your quote. Of course the situations were not identical, I never said they were. I pointed out the similarities. And if Saddam was the pussycat you seem to think he was, why were the arms inspectors needed in Iraq? If he hadn’t the capacity or willingness to become a threat again, surely they were redundant?

And again I say this is beside the point. Even if we agreed that the threat was credible I think you would still insist that that would not warrant the US taking unilateral action.

Mr.Micro

lugha wrote: »

I did point out the similarities in the post you quoted but you omitted them from your quote. Of course the situations were not identical, I never said they were. I pointed out the similarities. And if Saddam was the pussycat you seem to think he was, why were the arms inspectors needed in Iraq? If he hadn’t the capacity or willingness to become a threat again, surely they were redundant?

And again I say this is beside the point. Even if we agreed that the threat was credible I think you would still insist that that would not warrant the US taking unilateral action.

The arms inspectors were there under UN auspices as Blair and Bush were insisting he had WMD hence the inspectors. Of course they found nothing as we all know. Iraq was crippled with sanctions not like a resurgent Germany pre world war 2. Iraq was no threat to the west, I doubt if Saddam could get his army out of Iraq, let alone invade or attack anyone. He was merely an excuse for Blair and Bush to have their jollies.

Nodin

lugha wrote: »

Well, given the length of time he was in power that strategy wasn't panning out too well was it?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was a time schedule. Was there somewhere the world had to be? Nor was I aware he was under the same level of pressure for all of his reign.

lugha wrote: »

Would you ever support a country making a unilateral decision to go in to another to right a wrong?

Rwanda springs to mind.

However going in and righting a wrong, and goings in, shoehorning a state into a particular economic model, then leaving a few hundred thousand troops there, just beside a country you've previously interfered with.....bit different.

lugha

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The arms inspectors were there under UN auspices as Blair and Bush were insisting he had WMD hence the inspectors. Of course they found nothing as we all know. Iraq was crippled with sanctions not like a resurgent Germany pre world war 2. Iraq was no threat to the west, I doubt if Saddam could get his army out of Iraq, let alone invade or attack anyone. He was merely an excuse for Blair and Bush to have their jollies.

The arms inspectors were there originally long before Blair or Bush came to power. Why, if Iraq were no threat?
And Germany had far more severe economic sanctions levied against them under the treaty of Versailles.

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

Rwanda springs to mind.
However going in and righting a wrong .....

Careful now! I hope you are not suggesting any country might have taken it upon themselves to go in and try to stop the slaughter. Because that would have been a violation of *hushed awe* international law

whynotwhycanti

lugha wrote: »

I did point out the similarities in the post you quoted but you omitted them from your quote. Of course the situations were not identical, I never said they were. I pointed out the similarities. And if Saddam was the pussycat you seem to think he was, why were the arms inspectors needed in Iraq? If he hadn’t the capacity or willingness to become a threat again, surely they were redundant?

And again I say this is beside the point. Even if we agreed that the threat was credible I think you would still insist that that would not warrant the US taking unilateral action.

I think you are clutching at straws with your analogy, the German army leading up to WWII was one of the most advanced in the world, the US took Baghdad in a number of weeks .I've never heard of this 'theory' before and it really is just a hypothesis. I think the subsequent post has dealt with why the arms inspectors were in Iraq at the time i.e. the claims being made by Bush and Blair, not because of your hypothetical situation of saddam building up some army with huge capabilities.

Interestingly, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time has been giving evidence and he has some very interesting views he would like to share. I can’t summarise them all here but please do read the link below. It really doesn’t help your argument.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8503454.stm


You say 'even if we agreed that the threat was credible'. Can we please stop talking in hypothetical situations; it detracts from what we are actually debating. It has been proven, beyond doubt that the claims made about his capabilities and his status as being a threat were unfounded, hence the UK enquiry as to the reasoning behind the invasion. You can't say what i would and would not do, but history has proven that my initial stance on the situation was correct. We could never agree on whether the threat was credible, not because of difference in opinion but because of the fact that he posed no threat, as has been well documented.

Mr.Micro

lugha wrote: »

The arms inspectors were there originally long before Blair or Bush came to power. Why, if Iraq were no threat?
And Germany had far more severe economic sanctions levied against them under the treaty of Versailles.

It goes back to the Gulf war and the yanks kept the pressure up re weapons in case he was hiding any, and the inspectors were a way of keeping and eye on him, as the US was thwarted in the Gulf war so they were out to get him. The Us knew he has no WMD because if he had they would probably have sold them to him in the first place.


The sanction probably worked against Iraq and in the case of Germany they clearly did not and who was there to enforce them? Nobody hence the resurgence of Germany. Hans Blix said there were no weapons, but Blair and Bush were intent on partying no matter what.

lugha

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It goes back to the Gulf war and the yanks kept the pressure up re weapons in case he was hiding any, and the inspectors were a way of keeping and eye on him, as the US was thwarted in the Gulf war so they were out to get him. The Us knew he has no WMD because if he had they would probably have sold them to him in the first place.


The sanction probably worked against Iraq and in the case of Germany they clearly did not and who was there to enforce them? Nobody hence the resurgence of Germany. Hans Blix said there were no weapons, but Blair and Bush were intent on partying no matter what.

You can argue that the weapons inspectors were really US stooges put in place as spies. Or you can argue that they were truly independent observers whose findings can be accepted.
But not both. In the same post.

lugha

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Interestingly, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector at the time has been giving evidence and he has some very interesting views he would like to share. I can’t summarise them all here but please do read the link below. It really doesn’t help your argument.

What Blix has to say would only have any bearing on my argument if I was saying Saddam actually did have WMD. Which I am not, so it doesn't.
Once again, with feeling, I do not say Saddam was the biggest threat to the West, or the most immediate threat to the West. Indeed I don't even say he was a threat to the West. I say he was a potential threat to the West.
Perhaps an elaboration on what potential means might help. It does not necessarily mean that he would definitely have become a threat given enough time. It means he might have become a threat. Hence I describe him as a potential threat.
I am sure that those who formulated the treaty of Versailles thought that this would curtail the threat of Germany for the foreseeable future. But, as you point out, within a very short time they had one of the most formidable armies in the world. Politics can change very quickly. Some unforeseen change in the political landscape or some unexpected new alliance might have suddenly left Saddam untouchable. And I have no doubt he would seek to acquire WMD if that were to transpire. Probably this would never have happened and Saddam might be left to hobble along doing his thuggish thing. But IMO (obviously unique here as everybody else seems to see him as a big cuddly teddy bear), he was a loose cannon.

aidan24326

lugha wrote: »

I am sure that those who formulated the treaty of Versailles thought that this would curtail the threat of Germany for the foreseeable future. But, as you point out, within a very short time they had one of the most formidable armies in the world. Politics can change very quickly. Some unforeseen change in the political landscape or some unexpected new alliance might have suddenly left Saddam untouchable. And I have no doubt he would seek to acquire WMD if that were to transpire. Probably this would never have happened and Saddam might be left to hobble along doing his thuggish thing. But IMO (obviously unique here as everybody else seems to see him as a big cuddly teddy bear), he was a loose cannon.

And do what with them? He might have liked to have them to wave them around and gloat, but he sure as hell wouldn't have dared to use them, most certainly not against the US anyway, and not their Israeli pals either. Saddam may have been evil but he was hardly stupid enough to think that attacking the US (or any of their western allies) would be anything other than national suicide.

The idea of having WMDs such as nuclear bombs is not so as to use them, it's as a defence mechanism, nobody will fcuk with you when you've got nukes, too dangerous. That's why the likes of Iran would love to have a few nuclear weapons, it would make it much more difficult and dangerous for the US or Israel or anyone else to mess with them. It is, in fact, why war between the US and the Soviets never happened, as each knew the other had the capacity to cause them an immense amount of death and destruction, enough nukes to effectively wipe several major cities off the map. In a strange kind of way nuclear weapons became a deterrent to war.

lugha

aidan24326 wrote: »

And do what with them? He might have liked to have them to wave them around and gloat, but he sure as hell wouldn't have dared to use them, most certainly not against the US anyway, and not their Israeli pals either. Saddam may have been evil but he was hardly stupid enough to think that attacking the US (or any of their western allies) would be anything other than national suicide.

The idea of having WMDs such as nuclear bombs is not so as to use them, it's as a defence mechanism, nobody will fcuk with you when you've got nukes, too dangerous. That's why the likes of Iran would love to have a few nuclear weapons, it would make it much more difficult and dangerous for the US or Israel or anyone else to mess with them. It is, in fact, why war between the US and the Soviets never happened, as each knew the other had the capacity to cause them an immense amount of death and destruction, enough nukes to effectively wipe several major cities off the map. In a strange kind of way nuclear weapons became a deterrent to war.

That's certainly a new line. Even the greatest critics of the war do not say it didn't matter if Saddam had WMD or not, they say he didn't have them and couldn't get them.

whynotwhycanti

lugha wrote: »

Indeed I don't even say he was a threat to the West. I say he was a potential threat to the West.
Perhaps an elaboration on what potential means might help. It does not necessarily mean that he would definitely have become a threat given enough time. It means he might have become a threat. Hence I describe him as a potential threat.
I am sure that those who formulated the treaty of Versailles thought that this would curtail the threat of Germany for the foreseeable future. But, as you point out, within a very short time they had one of the most formidable armies in the world. Politics can change very quickly. Some unforeseen change in the political landscape or some unexpected new alliance might have suddenly left Saddam untouchable. And I have no doubt he would seek to acquire WMD if that were to transpire. Probably this would never have happened and Saddam might be left to hobble along doing his thuggish thing. But IMO (obviously unique here as everybody else seems to see him as a big cuddly teddy bear), he was a loose cannon.

Nobody on here has ever said he was a cuddly bear. He was a dictator who murdered his own people. However, your analogy involving Germany is so far from the truth of what happened that it is quite a radical viewpoint. The fact is Iraq was nothing like Germany was after WWI. You keep on saying, he may have acquired weapons, or he may have had the potential but the evidence show he didn't and wasn't even in the process of acquiring such an arsenal. How could he build up his army like Hitler did in Germany when he was busy enough fighting his own revolting factions within Iraq, but Hitler had the support of the entire nation. You keep on saying, there was a possibility or potential for him and Iraq to become like Germany, or to acquire WMDs but there is absolutely no evidence so I suggest you move along with this theory and all your hypothetical situations that never happened as has been proven by undeniable evidence. The fact that in your eyes he was a potential threat, based on no solid evidence as can be backed up by the hours Hans Blix spent in Iraq, simply show that you’re stubborn in your flawed viewpoint.

Nodin

lugha wrote: »

Careful now! I hope you are not suggesting any country might have taken it upon themselves to go in and try to stop the slaughter. Because that would have been a violation of *hushed awe* international law

No, it wouldn't nessecarily have been. However now, intervention in the case of Genocide is considered an imperative.

lugha

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

How could he build up his army like Hitler did in Germany

I cited post WW I Germany as an example of when economic sanctions and military restrictions failed to contain a threat. If you want to persist in suggesting that I am arguing that the two situations are carbon copies of each other and that a war machine similar to 1930s Germany might emerge under Saddam then go ahead. I am not going to bother correcting you again.
What do you suppose would / will happen if Iran had a nuclear arsenal? Do you really think they would tolerate the US camped on their door step? And do you not think maybe, just maybe, Saddam might have exploited that situation?

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

The fact that in your eyes he was a potential threat, based on no solid evidence as can be backed up by the hours Hans Blix spent in Iraq, simply show that you’re stubborn in your flawed viewpoint.

Funny you mention stubborn because that's the impression I am getting from the collective arguments here, all to maintain this juvenile anti-Americanism.
We have you intent (I'm beginning to suspect deliberately) misinterpreting what I am saying. We had somebody arguing simultaneously for the integrity of the weapons inspectors and that they were US spies. And more recently we are getting the give away line, "even if he did ..."
The fact is I am making a very restrained claim that Saddam was a potential threat. You and the rest are dogmatically asserting that he absolutely could never possibly pose a threat. Do you really think the threat he posed could be set at absolutely zero?