03-14-2004, 01:39 AM
"The sanctions did nothing. The sanctions did nothing. Saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.N. after invading another country, and they didn't do a damn thing about it."
Well, uh, no. The sanctions did plenty. First and foremost, they killed a lot of people. Whether that was worth it or not depends on where you sit, we're not going to go over that again. But past that, they apparently prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining anything even resembling a WMD program after the Gulf War, and indeed prevented Iraq from rebuilding anything at all, except Saddam's ego. The invasion has even verified that he was far weaker than even our lowest estimates considered.
If they didn't work, why was Iraq a crippled, powerless nation ever since '91? As far as containment goes, that was a pretty rousing success, except for all those dead babies, which I suppose is just the price of doing business.
As per invading another country, I seem to remember something like the wrath of the western world coming down on Saddam Hussein, and his country was blown to smithereens, his army was cowering or defecting, and then crippling sanctions blocking practically everything from reaching Iraq were levied on him for a dozen years.
That doesn't really sound like "nothing". The invasion of Kuwait was resolved in Gulf 1; if you want to justify Gulf 2, you'll need something else.
"However, the war on Iraq was reasonable and necessary, and would have been lauded as a good idea by the people booing it now, had it been headed by Clinton."
That's just downright offensive. I hated Clinton's politics nearly as much as I hated Bush I, although they both seem like George bloody Washington compared to Shrub. Partizanship doesn't much apply to me, since I don't live in your country, and, if I did, would have voted for Nader unrepentantly. I hold my views because I've thought about them, not because they're held by a party, and even if I did follow a party line, it sure as hell wouldn't be the American Democratic Party.
"The fact that Bush claimed we were really going in there because of WMD's and 9/11 has no bearing on whether the war itself was justified, other than Bush using a half-assed reason that he either believed or thought was more likely to convince people it was necessary."
Well, that's certainly true. But since "liberation" doesn't hold up, and neither does "we're allowed to enforce the UN's declarations unilaterally, even if it doesn't pass the security council", what reason exactly is there? That he "had it coming"?
"Resume responding"? In addition to the somewhat absurd nature of that concept after a dozen years, the first war was fought and won under the aegis of the UN. Wanna start shooting again? Get the security council's permission first. France being whiners? Tough, the US abuses its veto more than anyone, the French are allowed to do the same. That's even presuming you'd have won the vote anyway, a dubious proposition.
I see no justification that holds water. What does that mean? Unjust war. What does THAT mean? The Hague for Bush and co.
But, then, the world just might not be logical enough for that. I'll have to settle for him being turfed out of office next election.
Jester
Well, uh, no. The sanctions did plenty. First and foremost, they killed a lot of people. Whether that was worth it or not depends on where you sit, we're not going to go over that again. But past that, they apparently prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining anything even resembling a WMD program after the Gulf War, and indeed prevented Iraq from rebuilding anything at all, except Saddam's ego. The invasion has even verified that he was far weaker than even our lowest estimates considered.
If they didn't work, why was Iraq a crippled, powerless nation ever since '91? As far as containment goes, that was a pretty rousing success, except for all those dead babies, which I suppose is just the price of doing business.
As per invading another country, I seem to remember something like the wrath of the western world coming down on Saddam Hussein, and his country was blown to smithereens, his army was cowering or defecting, and then crippling sanctions blocking practically everything from reaching Iraq were levied on him for a dozen years.
That doesn't really sound like "nothing". The invasion of Kuwait was resolved in Gulf 1; if you want to justify Gulf 2, you'll need something else.
"However, the war on Iraq was reasonable and necessary, and would have been lauded as a good idea by the people booing it now, had it been headed by Clinton."
That's just downright offensive. I hated Clinton's politics nearly as much as I hated Bush I, although they both seem like George bloody Washington compared to Shrub. Partizanship doesn't much apply to me, since I don't live in your country, and, if I did, would have voted for Nader unrepentantly. I hold my views because I've thought about them, not because they're held by a party, and even if I did follow a party line, it sure as hell wouldn't be the American Democratic Party.
"The fact that Bush claimed we were really going in there because of WMD's and 9/11 has no bearing on whether the war itself was justified, other than Bush using a half-assed reason that he either believed or thought was more likely to convince people it was necessary."
Well, that's certainly true. But since "liberation" doesn't hold up, and neither does "we're allowed to enforce the UN's declarations unilaterally, even if it doesn't pass the security council", what reason exactly is there? That he "had it coming"?
"Resume responding"? In addition to the somewhat absurd nature of that concept after a dozen years, the first war was fought and won under the aegis of the UN. Wanna start shooting again? Get the security council's permission first. France being whiners? Tough, the US abuses its veto more than anyone, the French are allowed to do the same. That's even presuming you'd have won the vote anyway, a dubious proposition.
I see no justification that holds water. What does that mean? Unjust war. What does THAT mean? The Hague for Bush and co.
But, then, the world just might not be logical enough for that. I'll have to settle for him being turfed out of office next election.
Jester