International Law: Now What?

[Seeker]

I want to clarify my position regarding US power and international law.

My view:
IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.

However, it also didn't launch the war because of 'WMD'. It looked like a pretext then, and it looks like one now. Oh, I know it was one reason, but not the only one.

IMO, the reason the USA launched the war was because they were firmly convinced that Saddam was 'evil' and, as the good guys, they had a 'job to do' as the world's self-appointed policeman.


That's fine and everything, but I think myself and the ROW have a right to be a little suspicious about the following things:

A) Why now(then)?
B) Why Iraq?

C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?

Here's a wierd thing: I would be in favour of the war if it was actually part of an American policy to defeat evil dictators everywhere. If the reason really were that American had a government policy to 'crusade against evil and help the oppressed peoples of the world' (what pro-Americans think in their hearts is what they are doing in Iraq).

But they don't. There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared. Hell, that kind of **** happens to people the US doesn't like in Colombia, and they get aid for it instead of a bombing campaign.

I don't believe that it came down to oil. I don't even believe it came down to an Imperialist 'hunger for desolate places' (strategic location, power projection). I really think they thought they were doing it for 'the best of reasons'.....

So why is there no policy, why was it just a aberration, a one-off 'let's make the most of whatever pretext we can' thing?? If the US really wants to change the world through superior firepower whatever the cost I want to see Rumsfeld drawing up invasion task forces for all the vile(-er than the Bush admin) regimes of the world.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Seeker
IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.

However, it also didn't launch the war because of 'WMD'. It looked like a pretext then, and it looks like one now. Oh, I know it was one reason, but not the only one.

IMO, the reason the USA launched the war was because they were firmly convinced that Saddam was 'evil' and, as the good guys, they had a 'job to do' as the world's self-appointed policeman.

Wholeheartedly agreed

That's fine and everything, but I think myself and the ROW have a right to be a little suspicious about the following things:

A) Why now(then)?
B) Why Iraq?
C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?

A) Many reasons... the whole hype over Iraq started around the mid-year elections in the US... Iraq had been named in the axis of evil, perhaps the admin wanted to send a message to NK and Iran?

B) Named in the Axis of Evil, "dodgy" muslim country, possibly habouring terrorists. Their track record isn't incredibly good.

C) Define "we".

Here's a wierd thing: I would be in favour of the war if it was actually part of an American policy to defeat evil dictators everywhere. If the reason really were that American had a government policy to 'crusade against evil and help the oppressed peoples of the world' (what pro-Americans think in their hearts is what they are doing in Iraq).

But they don't. There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared. Hell, that kind of **** happens to people the US doesn't like in Colombia, and they get aid for it instead of a bombing campaign.

Someone has to come first. Afghanistan and Iraq had totalitarian governments, NK does... let's just say that Columbia hasn't been placed under the world spotlight like NK or Iraq.

I don't believe that it came down to oil. I don't even believe it came down to an Imperialist 'hunger for desolate places' (strategic location, power projection). I really think they thought they were doing it for 'the best of reasons'.....

Agreed. Imperialism is out and has been for over 50 years. Why can't the lefties just stop poking the dead ideal?

So why is there no policy, why was it just a aberration, a one-off 'let's make the most of whatever pretext we can' thing?? If the US really wants to change the world through superior firepower whatever the cost I want to see Rumsfeld drawing up invasion task forces for all the vile(-er than the Bush admin) regimes of the world.

Afghanistan -> Iraq -> North Korea -> ???

They got rid of 2 in 2 years. That's good going in my opinion.

[Buck Birdseed]

You're one naive guy, mate. These are not some crusading amateurs in washington, they're highly paid, highly trained foreign policy professionals, especially Wolfowitz and Rice. They all belong exclusively to the so-called "Realist" school of international relations theory, whose baisc tenets are: (a) states, not peoples, are the primary object of international relations, (b) there's no overarching world order, an "anarchy" exists at an interstate level and all states constantly have to compete with each other, and (c) a state should, in order to ensure its survival, always act in its own self-interest, always "self-help". If it was not for oil, you can be pretty sure it was for some other tangiable, self-centered benefit, like dealing with internal dissent, setting some sort of example, boosting the military-industrial complex, strategic positioning, regional dominance or whatever.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
You're one naive guy, mate. These are not some crusading amateurs in washington, they're highly paid, highly trained foreign policy professionals, especially Wolfowitz and Rice. They all belong exclusively to the so-called "Realist" school of international relations theory, whose baisc tenets are: (a) states, not peoples, are the primary object of international relations, (b) there's no overarching world order, an "anarchy" exists at an interstate level and all states constantly have to compete with each other, and (c) a state should, in order to ensure its survival, always act in its own self-interest, always "self-help". If it was not for oil, you can be pretty sure it was for some other tangiable, self-centered benefit, like dealing with internal dissent, setting some sort of example, boosting the military-industrial complex, strategic positioning, regional dominance or whatever.

It was more likely to send a message to the UN, or more likely NK that the US isn't gonna mess around when it comes to dictators.

[Seeker]

"If it was not for oil, you can be pretty sure it was for some other tangiable, self-centered benefit, like dealing with internal dissent, setting some sort of example, boosting the military-industrial complex, strategic positioning, regional dominance or whatever."

You misunderstand.

I'm sure Cheney, et al had quite a few ulterior motives, but what I'm interested in is why the American people and the rest of the government and armed forces supported it, and what the whole thing means for international law (i.e. the end of it)

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Seeker
"If it was not for oil, you can be pretty sure it was for some other tangiable, self-centered benefit, like dealing with internal dissent, setting some sort of example, boosting the military-industrial complex, strategic positioning, regional dominance or whatever."

You misunderstand.

I'm sure Cheney, et al had quite a few ulterior motives, but what I'm interested in is why the American people and the rest of the government and armed forces supported it, and what the whole thing means for international law (i.e. the end of it)

I'm not American but I supported it because it removed an evil despot from a nation, and sent a clear message to North Korea

[yago]

IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.

In my view it's about the Oil.

Oil. The main Oil ressources of the world are concentrated in two oil-fields. Those oil-fields are called Saudia-Arabia and Iraq.

For a civ-player. Take a world map, and put 80% of all oil-fiels in this region. Which region will you try to conquer ???

The funniest:

USA - It's not about Oil. We don't care for the Oil. Who needs Oil anyway ? But Iraq is able to repay our effort with it's .......................... OIL !!!!!!!

USA on France/Russia - They want the Oil. That's what they want !!!!!!

There's a saying: Never assume that the intentions of others are meaner than your own.

[Lazerus]

American wanted a war for oil (according to lefties)
France didn't want a war to keep the oil

Why do people see the US as so bad ?? Atleast the region is going to be improved now

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Atleast the region is going to be improved now

That remains to be seen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazerus
American wanted a war for oil (according to lefties)
France didn't want a war to keep the oil

Why do people see the US as so bad ?? Atleast the region is going to be improved now

What's worse, starting a war or avoiding a war?

So far:

1. Many Iraqi civilians killed and massive damages were done to infrastructure.

2. At least one library was set on fire, museums with priceless artifacts looted and vandalised.

3. Massive looting broke out in cities, US forces failed to restore order.

4. This one guy backed by the US doesn't have support from the people, but the US seems to determined to push him through. The word "puppet" rings a bell.

5. The US has been ignoring local populists, not a wise thing to do to restore order and stability.

6. The US forces did a whole bunch of stupid things, like storing high explosives in a residential area.

[Sava]

I agree oil wasn't the sole driving force, but you have to wonder when so many friends of the administration are going to be making money off of it. There are two simple things that could have been different and the US would have not attacked Iraq.

If Saddam didn't try to kill Bush Sr.
And if Iraq had no oil.

This war would have not happened.

Sure, people can justify this war by saying "It was about liberation." or "it was about a threat of WMD's" but that simply isn't true. And people need to stop lying to themselves because the architects of this war are laughing all the way to the bank.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Seeker
I want to clarify my position regarding US power and international law.

My view:
IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.

However, it also didn't launch the war because of 'WMD'. It looked like a pretext then, and it looks like one now. Oh, I know it was one reason, but not the only one.

IMO, the reason the USA launched the war was because they were firmly convinced that Saddam was 'evil' and, as the good guys, they had a 'job to do' as the world's self-appointed policeman.


That's fine and everything, but I think myself and the ROW have a right to be a little suspicious about the following things:

A) Why now(then)?
B) Why Iraq?

C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?

Here's a wierd thing: I would be in favour of the war if it was actually part of an American policy to defeat evil dictators everywhere. If the reason really were that American had a government policy to 'crusade against evil and help the oppressed peoples of the world' (what pro-Americans think in their hearts is what they are doing in Iraq).

But they don't. There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared. Hell, that kind of **** happens to people the US doesn't like in Colombia, and they get aid for it instead of a bombing campaign.

I don't believe that it came down to oil. I don't even believe it came down to an Imperialist 'hunger for desolate places' (strategic location, power projection). I really think they thought they were doing it for 'the best of reasons'.....

So why is there no policy, why was it just a aberration, a one-off 'let's make the most of whatever pretext we can' thing?? If the US really wants to change the world through superior firepower whatever the cost I want to see Rumsfeld drawing up invasion task forces for all the vile(-er than the Bush admin) regimes of the world.

I don't think that we can offord a "defeat dictators everywhere" policy. But if we wack one or two on the head every now and then, the rest will take not...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
They all belong exclusively to the so-called "Realist" school of international relations theory,

Realists regard neocons as being insane.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
A) Why now(then)?

W couldn't do it later to both help his oil buddies and hope for the negative consequences of a war to wear out.

Originally posted by Seeker
B) Why Iraq?

1. It has oil
2. It didn't have much of a military

Originally posted by Seeker
C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?

Who are "we?" Aren't you Canadian?

No, the US never bothers with international law much unless it suits them. Like, eh, calling Iraqi soldiers "war criminals."

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Realists regard neocons as being insane.

Indeed they do. I don't believe the whitehouse elite is neo-conservative.

[Drake Tungsten]

There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared.

Yes there is. First, America had already fought Iraq once and Iraq had failed to live up to its ceasefire responsibilities for over a decade. America had a pretty open and shut case against Iraq in terms of international law. Even without current UN approval, past SC resolutions allowed the US to claim legal legitmacy for the invasion. This couldn't have happened in the invasion of any other nation.

Second, Iraq was thought to be developing WMDs. Whether or not this was true remains to be seen, but before the war everyone seemed to believe Saddam had WMDs (even the French). The perceived presence of WMDs sets Iraq from most other dictatorships around the world.

Third, Iraq is at the heart of a region that is a breeding ground for Islamism and terrorism. That region needs to be reformed if we ever hope to beat Islamic fundamentalism, which makes a democracy in Iraq a much higher priority than democracy in Burma or Zimbabwe.

There were plenty of reasons to go after Iraq above and beyond the fact that it was a brutal tyranny.

Indeed they do. I don't believe the whitehouse elite is neo-conservative.

Some are, some aren't. Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell aren't. Wolfowitz and Cheney (sort-of) are. Saying the Bush Administration is run solely by realists is as stupid as saying that the Administration is run by a Jewish-cabal of neo-cons.

[Ramo]

I think it's pretty clear why we invaded Iraq. In order of highest priority:

1. He was our boy, and he crossed us, so we're taking him out. Such an action would insure that certain pivotal states (such as Pakistan) will remain obedient to the US.
2. War fervor keeps voters from worrying about the economy, civil liberties, etc., etc. This war may have insured that Shrub will stay President next election and that his agenda will remain dominant.
3. We can control other states with control over Iraqi oil.
4. Lots of sweet, tasty pork. Of course, US contracters like Haliburton won't have to worry about French competition or anything like that.
.
.
.
5. WMD's. Not a real concern, but I suppose there's a chance that there's a secret alliance where Saddam is giving al-Qaeda lots of weapons and supplies. Of course, there's also a chance that the Tooth Fairy exists...
6. Iraqi liberties. Also not a real concern, became the main pretext once we couldn't find WMD's immediately, and there's little chance of any substantial improvement, but it could happen even if the probability of it happening is totally insignificant.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think it's pretty clear why we invaded Iraq. In order of highest priority:

1. He was our boy, and he crossed us, so we're taking him out. Such an action would insure that certain pivotal states (such as Pakistan) will remain obedient to the US.
2. War fervor keeps voters from worrying about the economy, civil liberties, etc., etc. This war may have insured that Shrub will stay President next election and that his agenda will remain dominant.
3. We can control other states with control over Iraqi oil.
4. Lots of sweet, tasty pork. Of course, US contracters like Haliburton won't have to worry about French competition or anything like that.
.
.
.
5. WMD's. Not a real concern, but I suppose there's a chance that there's a secret alliance where Saddam is giving al-Qaeda lots of weapons and supplies. Of course, there's also a chance that the Tooth Fairy exists...
6. Iraqi liberties. Also not a real concern, became the main pretext once we couldn't find WMD's immediately, and there's little chance of any substantial improvement, but it could happen even if the probability of it happening is totally insignificant.

With number one, you should include the influence over people "not our boy" such as Assad and Kim. They notice what happened to the last misbehaver.

You also left out the chance to take on a supporter of Islam terror. irt 911. (And no, I DON'T think there is a strong link between Saddam and Iraq. But there is a loose link. And the invasion has a negative impact on general Islam-based terror and support for terror.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree oil wasn't the sole driving force, but you have to wonder when so many friends of the administration are going to be making money off of it.

Not really. In fact, Bush's 'friends' will probably lose money with the glut of oil on the market. However, I guess Bush's non-oil 'friends' (other industries) would benefit greatly.

It may have been GP on another thread that shared an anecdote where Bush Sr, while VP, wanted Saudi Arabia to restrict oil (to help out the oil guys), but Reagan slapped him down.

[Ramo]

With number one, you should include the influence over people "not our boy" such as Assad and Kim. They notice what happened to the last misbehaver.

Yep, true.

You also left out the chance to take on a supporter of Islam terror. irt 911. (And no, I DON'T think there is a strong link between Saddam and Iraq. But there is a loose link. And the invasion has a negative impact on general Islam-based terror and support for terror.)

If you mean Saddam and al-Qaeda, I'd have to call bullshit on that. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with any terrorist acts against the US, through either Islamist or secular organizations.

Of course, it's true that he was involved in some Islamist terror - against the secular Kurds and against Israel through supporting Hamas, but this isn't all that substantial compared to some of the other states in region (i.e. Saudi Arabia).

[Shi Huangdi]

Hopefully, International Law will be weakend with this war. It would be a great a side effect if we removed this constraint on our power.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Indeed they do. I don't believe the whitehouse elite is neo-conservative.

Wolfowitz and co. certainly aren't realists however.

If you mean Saddam and al-Qaeda

He probably means Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, etc.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo




Of course, it's true that he was involved in some Islamist terror - against the secular Kurds and against Israel through supporting Hamas, but this isn't all that substantial compared to some of the other states in region (i.e. Saudi Arabia).

1. You are misinterpreting what I said. With a kneejerk reaction to an argument I did not make. I am not claiming a specific connection.

2. Different countries get different treatment. This is not "school". We are not going to exert influence on Russia exactly how we do on Iraq, nor on Saudi Arabia. And there is a difference between the under the table money in Saudi arabia from diffuse sources and the head-of-the-snake that was Iraq. All that said, we are in a better position to continue to influence SA. I repeat again this is not the school principals office.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wolfowitz and co. certainly aren't realists however.

Quote:

If you mean Saddam and al-Qaeda

He probably means Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, etc.

Kee-rect.

[Ramo]

He probably means Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, etc.

Well, yes, Saddam has been involved with anti-Israeli terrorist groups. I mentioned that. But what does that have to do with 9/11.

You are misinterpreting what I said. With a kneejerk reaction to an argument I did not make. I am not claiming a specific connection.

You claimed there was a link. I responded to that assertion. No need to get pissy.

Different countries get different treatment. This is not "school". We are not going to exert influence on Russia exactly how we do on Iraq, nor on Saudi Arabia. And there is a difference between the under the table money in Saudi arabia from diffuse sources and the head-of-the-snake that was Iraq. All that said, we are in a better position to continue to influence SA. I repeat again this is not the school principals office.

I didn't mention that Saudi Arabia is an ally. I just said that Iraqi support of international terrorism is insignificant compared to some of the other powers in the region, and comparable to most of them. Taking out Saddam simply was not a significant impact in Islamist terrorism or support for terror.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Well, yes, Saddam has been involved with anti-Israeli terrorist groups. I mentioned that. But what does that have to do with 9/11.



You claimed there was a link. I responded to that assertion. No need to get pissy.



I didn't mention that Saudi Arabia is an ally. I just said that Iraqi support of international terrorism is insignificant compared to some of the other powers in the region, and comparable to most of them. Taking out Saddam simply was not a significant impact in Islamist terrorism or support for terror.

Ramo, there is a loose set of countries that practice terror. They help each other on occasion, trad favors, etc. Plus after 911, we said we would go after other terror other than just that responsible for 911.

I disagree that it will not have a significant impact. My rationale is that Syria and Iran will watch their step a little more now. One thing at a time...

[TCO]

Ramo, you will have to find someone else to argue that Saddam provided significant support to OBL. I am not arguing that.

[Ramo]

Ramo, there is a loose set of countries that practice terror. They help each other on occasion, trad favors, etc.

I'd say that most states in the world participate in terror to at least some degree (usually against their own populations). The countries that the state dept. brand as major terror supporters usually are highly antagonistic towards each other (Iraq/Iran, for instance).

Plus after 911, we said we would go after other terror other than just that responsible for 911.

That's nice, but it seems to me that it's being used as pretense, an updated version of "cocaine trafficking" or the "red menace."

I disagree that it will not have a significant impact. My rationale is that Syria and Iran will watch their step a little more now. One thing at a time...

Watch their step towards what end? Yes, they might not take quite as antagonistic stances towards the US as previously, but that doesn't mean that these states will stop their terror. I think, in fact, that this war gives these states pretense to crack down on dissidents to a greater degree. I really hope that the Iranian reformist movement won't be crushed because of our actions in Iraq.

It's clear to them that we didn't invade Iraq because of terrorism; why would they think that reduction in terrorism would deter a US attack?

Ramo, you will have to find someone else to argue that Saddam provided significant support to OBL. I am not arguing that.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Did you or did you not say that there's a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq?

[TCO]

No. They are fellow travellers. Not coconspirators.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GP


I don't think that we can offord a "defeat dictators everywhere" policy. But if we wack one or two on the head every now and then, the rest will take not...

Its time to wack a couple of African ones.