Quote:
|
The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?
|
As I understood it, permission was granted to Bush Senior etc... because Saddam actually invaded another sovereign country- Kuwait. As it was this time, Iraq invaded no-one, or really posed any significant
military threat to any other sovereign territory.
I supose it's reasonable to think that seeing as 'we' sold WMD's/technology to Saddam when he was an 'ally' it's conceivable to reach the conclusion that when Iraq leaders fell foul of fickle western diplomacy those same ppl/companies/powers that be were a tad worried about a pissed off dictator (whose midermeanours towards his own ppl were conveniently ignored while it suited us) with some badass weapons just itching for a place on the international stage.
Divide and Conquer - it's one of the oldest strategies in the book. If you want to start jumping at shadows, that is
I guess if the western powers had said "look, ok... we sold saddam some badass **** and now he's not our pal anymore, we kindof want it back 'cause we don't trust him that far" there would have been some explaining to do back home.
I have said before that people make choices based upon their concience or their pragmatism- I think maybe, selling a nutter dangerous weapons technology was one of those decisions that erred on the side of pragmatism
With all the conflicting so called 'reasons' for war with Iraq;
- securing oil.
- defending humanity from despots.
- hiding the truth and saving face over the sale of WMD's to a dictator.
I suppose liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam is as good as any. If only Blair, Bush and all the others had made this clear from the start, instead of peddling halftruths and speculatory reports concerning Saddams' timetable for launching a WMD attack, more folk might have been on side now and back when the case for war was being stated to the UN- As most were when coming to the defense of Kuwait. When you look at the reasons for war as stated by various world leaders, the inference has evolved from removing WMD's, to removing WMD manufacturing capability, to stamping out terrorism, it all starts to seem rather threadbare.
Kindof like this:
GB+TB- he's got wmds!!
World- well maybe he hasn't anymore, you have evidence to the contrary?
GB+TB- but he's a bad man! and stirrs up terrorism over here!
World- so you can't say for sure, or find any WMD's?
GB+TB- yer,butno,butyer,butno,it'sallhisfault'causetracys aidhewozandthatdon'tmatteranyway'causehesmellsandi sagay...
:rotfl:
Personally, I think Saddam had to go for Iraq to develop more fully in the world, but whichever way you look at it, it wasn't going to be pretty, or quick. And now that we have made our bed, we have to lie in it. Besides, the west is as much responsible for some of the trouble in the middle east today as some of the crazies who live there.
As to weather or not anyone broke international law, pfft name a county that hasn't when it suited their national interest.