War Criminal?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I can agree with practically all of that, it was a good reply.

But we only know now that there was no WMD.

If they had known at the time that there was none, then why was Hans Blix and the UN still looking for it?

There must have been doubts as Blix would have just refused to keep on looking if he had known for sure that there was none and he was being fed a pack of lies.  I remember him saying I need more time, don't rush to war.

DaveP
 
I think that's putting a bit too much emphasis on proving a negative though. The only way to prove, within reason, that something that was created no longer exists, is if you first of all have detailed records of its creation, but then also more importantly of its destruction. Once the records are compromised that possibility is virtually out the window. So what you're left with then is whether or not it's reasonable to suspect something is left behind. Blix, as far as I recall, said he needed a few more months to complete his mission, but that he so far had not found anything that amounted to the weapons the coalition was talking about.

I think we also should remember that from the standpoint of the average American or UK citizen, even where Saddam was when he ceased his WMD program he didn't pose an immediate threat to those citizens.  So the worst case scenario would really have been that Saddam not only kept WMD but somehow managed to create a delivery system capable of reaching these nations. That's an even taller order to fill in terms of evidence.

So in my opinion the issue wasn't that Saddam was a bastard that had to go one way or another, sooner or later, but whether or not going to war at that time using the arguments that were made was reasonable As far as I can see, as the evidence was lacking, the correct thing to do was to wait. If the inspectors had been given more time they would have reached the conclusion we are now all aware of. But if Saddam would have prevented them from doing their job again the option of attacking still was there. And there'd have been a better case to bring to the UN for a resolution and better basis for it.

On a different note: John pointed out a while ago that it's a basic problem how we "deal with" these sorts of dictators. I'm personally torn between whether or not other nations should intervene or not. You (I think) made the point that countries may be more reluctant to do so moving forward and I flippantly replied that we'll have forgotten about it soon enough. I still think that's the case, but your point isn't really something I disagree with in one sense; should we intervene and at what cost?

From what I can see stability seems to come mostly when nations have their borders drawn along lines the people in the region are ok with, as well as when they feel their leaders represents their views.  So in the case of Romania the people changed their own country. Out with the dictator, in with something better. Peace. Stability. Iran, same thing with Mossadegh really. Out with the Shah, in with a democratic system. Unfortunately external meddling made that unravel. So on the one hand I can see the point you implied earlier which I'd paraphrase as that we perhaps need to deal with some regimes before things get worse not only for those who can't deal with it themselves but also for us, but then on the other I have to be skeptical when it comes to the true intentions of our leaders as well as the ability to actually be able to get to a decent solution without possibly breaking up nations (i.e. the Kurds get independence, and the Sunni / Shia might split as well, etc).......

What are your thoughts on the latter?
 
What are your thoughts on the latter?
I agree with it.

I don't think meddling is good policy.  The US has meddled in its own backyard, but sanctions Russia when it does the same!
Left over cold war paranoia, I am sick of it.
My generation has spent its entire life under the cloud of cold war threat and mistrust and I feel robbed of the victory that our fathers achieved at enormous cost in WW2.

I would like to see Russia accepted as a full partner on the world stage.  The international space station shows what coud be achieved by working together.  Constant liberal criticism of how they run their country is unhelpful, as you say, it is up to the people to make changes if they wish.  Social media is useful in this context.

Back on topic, I think that Obama has tried the "hands off" approach in Syria, only to face criticism as a lame duck.  If you decide to do nothing when dictators harm their people then you need a strong stomach.

The other alternative is to wait for the UN to approve an intervention, but that can often be delayed and manipulated by unscrupulous leaders, there are no easy answers, as I said earlier, "Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

DaveP
 
Back
Top