Forums Loading, stand by... HOME

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this?

Posted By: Phil (static-64-65-138-250.mspcovdsl.eschelon.com)
Date: 6/3/2003 at 7:50 p.m.

In Response To: Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this? (greygelgoog)

Warning: Long Post Ahead.

As far as threats against our country, the UN doesn't look kindly on ousting a leader because we don't like his policies. I'm just dubious since there are so many dictators in oil-poor countries that we never touch, but many threats in oil-rich countries that only conquest and occupation can solve.

What the U.N. doesn't look kindly upon is the breaking of International Law, and I can't say that I blame them. Under the United Nations Charter there are only two provisions that allow for one nation to usurp the sovereign authority of, and invade another. The first is if the Security Council decides that it is in the best interest of the U.N. to do so, and grants its permission. This is what we had during the first Gulf War, but lacked during this outing. The second provision allows for a nation that feels another poses an eminent threat to engage preemptively. It was our claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (a vague term in and of itself) posed this eminent threat. This claim is wearing thin.

There is one more situation in which a nation can legally invade another, and that is if the Sovereign of a nation, through choice or action, revokes his sovereignty. The quickest way to do this is by committing specific war crimes, i.e. "crimes against humanity." The most notable of which is ethnic cleansing or genocide. If a mad despot were to commit an act of genocide (let's say, the gassing of 50,000 Kurds for example) he would immediately revoke his sovereignty and be eligible to stand trial before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Under international law any nation that is aware that a crime against humanity is being committed is legally obligated to intervene and put an end to it. Often times this means invasion with the goal of dismantling the force committing the crimes and the apprehension or termination of those responsible. This was the goal of the U.N. coalition in Bosnia.

All this leads to a simple question, "why then, would the U.S. hide behind the eminent threat provision instead of simply making an accusation of genocide? Surely even Europe couldn’t argue that it was wrong to put an end to genocide?" Unfortunately the answer is more complicated. The U.S. (and Europe for its part) hate to accuse another nation of committing genocide and will avoid it at all costs. If a country recognizes an act of genocide in one nation, it has to recognize the same acts as genocide in all nations. A country that recognizes genocide essentially volunteers to be the world's police force, a costly job. And, sadly, you hit the nail on the head about the oil-poor countries. Why would even a country like the U.S., one that has the capability to do the job, want to police a bunch of third-world countries the effectively offer it nothing in return? What's more, pursuing war criminals would require the U.S. to recognize the authority of the ICC, something it's loath to do as a number prominent U.S. individuals *cough*Kissinger*cough* might find themselves facing war crimes charges.

In my mind, if the people of Iraq really wanted Saddam out, those 500 different resistance factions should have put there bickering aside, organized a revolution, and kicked him out.

This is far easier said than done. Though the U.S. might have made the Iraqi overthrow seem like a cakewalk, the Iraqi forces did in fact have tanks, artillery, and aircraft. Satellite guided smart-bombs might have made short work of them, but a rabble of poorly armed, poorly trained, and poorly fed freedom-fighters would have had a much tougher go of it. And when you really examine the hundreds of years of history and fear that exist between the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd inhabitants of Iraq, it becomes even more difficult.

In Iraq, the Kurds will likely take power.

The Kurds are the largest displaced ethnic group in the world and their history is a history of (pardon the term) being royally screwed. If the Kurds make it out of the current situation with the shirts on their backs, I would consider it a miracle. For more information, this is a good place to start.

Ultimately, we fought the right war for all the wrong reasons. It wasn't a war of liberation. It wasn't a war about eminent danger. It wasn't a war about oil. It was a war about something much more important, popularity.

-Phil.

Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." Dickens had Scrooge lament that, "Mankind should have been my business!"

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.

The Asylum

The Asylum is maintained by Myth Admin with WebBBS 5.12.