Iraq crisis: Historical precedents (worth a read)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why should Saddam feel compelled to honor a ceasefire that the United States violated first?

Are you really going to focus on this bull**** line of reasoning again, Boris? Defending Saddam Hussein does not become you...

How is it bull****? You were unable to provide any reasoning that the U.S. somehow had the right to violate the UN ceasefire. You just closed your ears to the fact that the U.S. took aggressive action against Iraq first after the ceasefire, which is not in dispute.

And the "defending Saddam" line is a tired old chestnut. If you're unable of coming up with a better comback than that one, don't even bother.

[C0ckney]

how did the US break the ceasefire (was it to do with the no-fly zones)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by C0ckney
how did the US break the ceasefire (was it to do with the no-fly zones)?

Yes. The U.S. unilatery imposed no-fly zones after the ceasefire. They weren't part of the ceasefire agreement that Iraq signed, they weren't sanctioned by the U.N. The U.S. then bombed Iraqi radar sites that had targeted their planes, citing "self-defense." Never mind the fact that the U.S. invading Iraqi airspace was an aggressive act.

Last year, the U.S. tried to use Iraq's targeting of their jets in the no-fly zones as proof of Iraqis violating the ceasefire. The U.N. categorically rejected the claim, saying Iraq had a right to defend its airspace from foreign invasion.

[C0ckney]

ok. the thing is though, that the no-fly zones serve a useful purpose, they help the kurds in the north maintain their quasi-independence from bagdad, that can hardly be seen as a bad thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Having some troops in an 'allied' Middle Eastern country is far less provocative than invading and occupying a hostile Middle Eastern country.

Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Islam, which makes the US presence there far more offensive than it would be otherwise.

As for invading and occupying Iraq, it will surely provoke some resentment in the short-term. If we can successfully build a democratic and prosperous Iraq, however, then it will better the image of the US in the long-term. Containment hurts our image and offers no way to improve it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by C0ckney
ok. the thing is though, that the no-fly zones serve a useful purpose, they help the kurds in the north maintain their quasi-independence from bagdad, that can hardly be seen as a bad thing.

1. Just because something serves a "useful purpose" does not give a country the right to violate a ceasefire to do it. It would serve a "useful purpose" to assassinate world leaders we found objectionable. Doesn't mean we should.

2. The U.S. has been letting Turkey use the no-fly zones in northern Iraq to bomb Kurdish villages. Is that a bad thing?

[Drake Tungsten]

You were unable to provide any reasoning that the U.S. somehow had the right to violate the UN ceasefire.

The US didn't violate the ceasefire.

You just closed your ears to the fact that the U.S. took aggressive action against Iraq first after the ceasefire, which is not in dispute.

The no-fly zones are not an agressive action. They are a defensive action to prevent Saddam from slaughtering Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. No bombs would ever have been dropped on Iraqi sites if they had not targeted US and British planes...

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
1. Just because something serves a "useful purpose" does not give a country the right to violate a ceasefire to do it. It would serve a "useful purpose" to assassinate world leaders we found objectionable. Doesn't mean we should.

i think allowing a people to have basic freedoms, some measure of democracy and protecting them from an evil man like saddam does justify a violation.

i also happen to think a fair few leaders around the world could do with a bullet between the eyes

2. The U.S. has been letting Turkey use the no-fly zones in northern Iraq to bomb Kurdish villages. Is that a bad thing?

i didn't know that was the case, but if it is true then it is a very bad thing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The US didn't violate the ceasefire.

Aggressive action against a country is a violation of a ceasefire.

The no-fly zones are not an agressive action. They are a defensive action to prevent Saddam from slaughtering Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. No bombs would ever have been dropped on Iraqi sites if they had not targeted US and British planes...

Invading a country's airspace is an aggressive action, and (as the UN said), that nation has a right to defend itself in such a situation with force.

[Boris Godunov]

If foreign planes enter U.S. airspace uninvited, you can bet your ass we'd target them. If they didn't leave, you can bet your ass we'd fire on them. And everyone would say we were right to do so.

[Drake Tungsten]

Aggressive action against a country is a violation of a ceasefire.

I don't think the no-fly zones are an "aggressive action", but it doesn't really matter. We both agree that the ceasefire was broken long ago, by one side or the other, so the war has technically been back on for years now. It's time for the US to finish it.

[GePap]

"Lessons form History" are a bunch of Bull.
They are worst that Nostradamus' work, sicne they have an aura of "intellectualism" that Nostradamus lacks.

Iraq can be contained without a single US soldier in Saudi Arabia, wich is really the single biggest point of contention: The Kuwaitis and the Rest of the tiny Gulf states are more than willing to base us.

As for Saddams behavior: I challenge anyone here to bo back, read reports from 1980 about the start of the Iran-Iraq war, and find one that makes Saddam out to be a horrible Hitler want-to be. Back in 1980, as many, if not more people blamed Iran for that war, due to its actions in trying to undermine Saddam, than blammed Saddam. And as for Kuwait, DD had a fine peice here long ago, worth a read, about what Saddam did and did not do with respects to Kuwait.

And on the WMD front: Iraq fought an 8 years long, bloody and difficult war with Iran: if Saddam is so willing toc ause massive civilian deaths with his WMD, then those eigth years would have been the best time to do it, no? Just aim a SCUD full of anthrax or VX at Tehran, kill 100,000 Iranians, and demand they give up, NO? But such a thing enevr happend, in part because of the nature of bio-chem weapons, it is almost impossible for it to happen. Nukes are the only true WMD, and Iraq has none. Biological aganets can be horribl3e, but using them correctly has yet to be figured out. Chemical weapons give you a bigger 'bang' for your byck than chemical explosives, but are difficult to use.

In short, the "appeasement" argument vis a vi Iraq is pathetically weak: The strong argument for War is the moral, liberate Iraqi's argument, and for that one, 1936 and 1939 are equally worthless.

[mindseye]

What was so wrong with containment?

Because it meant starving Iraq's citizens.

Wrong. Saddam is starving Iraqi citizens. Important distinction.

It also breeds resentment of the United States.

... uh, in sharp contrast with a full-fledged military invasion, right?

[axi]

I feel the situation resembles more 1919, when the British took Iraq from the Ottoman Empire and turned it into a colony for the oil, bombing all rebellious local tribes in the process.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by mindseye

Wrong. Saddam is starving Iraqi citizens. Important distinction.

I couldn't care less if he does or not, the fact still remains that sanctions are the root cause.

Sanctions: Saddam starves his citizens
War: some civilians die, but then afterward everyone else EATS!