Saddam Hussein arrested

[Agathon]

Thanks Spiff.

[Ramo]

Invading Iraq was intended to force Iraq to get in line. If other states see that as a message and decide 'to get in line', then that is just a positive bonus to all this.

I doubt we can maintain a friendly regime in Iraq. It's still fairly likely Iraq will degenerate into a civil war when all's said in done, and the winner of that civil war will probably not comfortably stay in line with the US anyways. If it doesn't degenerate into a civil war, the Shia majority would elect a gov't more friendly with Iran than the US (Sadr certainly is extremely pro-Iran, and I wouldn't describe Sistani as more pro-US than pro-Iran).

No, Iraq was a demonstration to the other states of the world of what we're willing to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that is much different. our system of enforcement and such is built upon our federal system of laws and our constitution (via supreme court) can make the final say over contridictions.... effectively making a very elastic unifide law.

this is not the case internationally. arms treatise between some countries are not made with rivals environmental treaties in mind, for example. and who is to make up for the lapses in the gaps of the hodgepodge of treaties? who is to rule on contridictions? what would give them that power?
etc etc... *sigh* that does not exist on an international scale! do you not understand me?

sure, we can deal in law with other countries on a case by case basis according to the treaties we have wth them, bu that is hardly unified whenit must be case by case. and even the the treaties only define so much. there is no legal homogeny internationaly like what we have nationally

See, no I don't understand you because you say international law isn't real law by ignoring all the parts where it is real law. There are many 'unified' laws internationally. The main problem is how to enforce it. I mean, really, most people agreed the Milosevic was violating international law (only some wacked out Greeks, Serbs, and super-lefties didn't) and most people agree that Saddam has violated international law. If there is such consensus doesn't that mean there is a unified international law in this area? The problem is enforcement of that law, which most everyone knows to exist.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you complain about Bush-bashers .

I'm not exclusively bashing Bush -- this is what politicians of both parties have done, historically during the Cold War.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

(, and I wouldn't describe Sistani as more pro-US than pro-Iran).

.

why not? he clearly wants to move the Najaf Hawza out from under the influence of the Iranian seminaries, a threat to the Iranian mullahs. And he seems to dislike the notion of Ayatollahs being dragged into the nitty gritty of daily politics. (Of course even several Iranian ayatollahs are disillusioned with the Iranian system)
And he seems to recognize the nationalism of the Iraqi Shia. He may not be "pro-US" but hes not likely to subordinate Iraq to Iran, and he seems willing to support some form of Iraqi democracy. Thats a win.

[Ramo]

I'm not saying it's not a win. Just that we wouldn't have a loyal client state. Sistani is certainly no US stooge. He wouldn't back any of Washington's agressive posturing with Tehran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm not saying it's not a win. Just that we wouldn't have a loyal client state. Sistani is certainly no US stooge. He wouldn't back any of Washington's agressive posturing with Tehran.

Well not with great enthusiasm, anyway. And probably wont support recognizing Israel (which Chalabi and the Kurds will support) etc. So? No worse than Afghanistan, say. Still a useful part of "Arab civilization version 2.0"

[Ming]

That was quick to the 500 limit. Please continue this at:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=104319