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]

Re: International Law: Now What?

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]

Re: International Law: Now What?

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]

Re: International Law: Now What?

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.