France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.
Strange reasoining in the end, quite anti-french. I could ready ouyr first sentence differently, and it would come closer to the truth: lead to war no matter what. That was what the US wanted: a blanko-cheque by the UN. That’s what the others didn’t want to give.
DS, some people are ‘true believers’…
Now say you aren’t one….
But the inspectors DID find evidence–if not of the vaunted “smoking gun” (that is, a chemical weapons factory), then certainly of Iraqi bad faith.
But still they complied under the pressure/threat.
I wasn’t at all stating “threaten to beat him up, then when he complies, beat him up anyway…” I’m saying when you threaten to beat him up if he doesn’t comply, then when he doesn’t comply you just threaten him again, the whole process just makes you look ridiculous. According to the reports of the UN inspectors (which I watched religiously) there was ample evidence of Iraqi BAD FAITH–that is, saying you want to comply but acting otherwise.
But still, the Iraqis complied, even if unwillingly. The point is (to me) that either you follow the laws of the international community, or you don’t. If you don’t, then any international laws can expected to be broken by you if you see fit. Why should any other dictator/regime/government which tries to get WMDs now stop it when threatened? It would be more reasonable to trey and get them before anybody has assembled an intervention force.
And it seems, we have heard/interpreted the inspectors reports quite differently.
As far as France, Russia etc. being willing to act if the inspectors said go–that is just a smokescreen. It’s preposterous that the decision for war or peace lies in the hands of a small group of academics. The job of the weapons inspectors was to observe & report, & make recommendations. The decision for war or not was always in the hands of nations & governments. They just chose to interpret Iraqi bad faith in the most favorable possible light for internal & external political reasons.
Well, if they had observed, reported and recommended differently, who knows how France, Russia and China would have decided…… the point is that i have never heard any criticism of the inspectors that was “beyond hope”. I think the governments did not interpret the faith but the actions of the Iraqi gov’t.
But what the US was saying may sound insulting but it was TRUE!
Except for the “evidence” that the Iraq works on WMDs and cooperates with Al Quaeda etc……
Again: Why should i believe one lying man but not the other?
The US delegation to the UN ought to have been more willing to compromise on the timing & the circumstances for war, but the antiwar powers ought to have been more willing to compromise on the possibility of war in the 1st place. So you see, its not all about the US being uncompromising–its about everyone losing sight of the purpose of the UN presence in Iraq in favor of narrow political vendettas & infighting.
We surely can argue about whose fault it was in the first place…. but it’s true, when the pace was raised, it turned into these vendettas. That’s what i blame both parties for. And in such a situation, it’s hard to blame the Iraq for following its “best strategy”.
As I stated, war was basically inevitable unless Hussein began to really act in good faith vis-a-vis the UN resolutions. Inevitable that is unless you are tacitly willing to accept his right to rule over Iraq in order to prevent war & prolong a favorable situation for the major powers at the expense of the people of Iraq. Sorry life isn’t always sunrise & moonbeams but thats the way it is.
Yup. And as i see it, you think that the “right to rule a country” lies not in the hands of that countries people only. I guess that is another point were our opinions differ.
If people believe no country as the right to pre-emptive action then they believe countries must wait to be attacked (then prove who attacked them I guess) before taking any action. So I suppose as long as say Saddam just killed 5 million shites Iraqis and 5 million kurdish Iraqis that would be regretable but certainly nothing one ought to intervene militarily to prevent this. Certainly prevention of genocide isn’t even pre-emptive defensive action.
No single country has the right to pre-emptively attack. For genocide, it is not a single countries responsibility either. And for your last sentence: Read it again please, now that you have some temporal distance: Yes, it certainly is not.
How many wars have been started “pre-emptively” because one nation claimed/thought a minority of its own people would suffer in another country? Would this scenario be a legal war, or could it be just an excuse used by that nation?