Originally posted by Mr.Toad
What has Iraq done to the US that justifies pre-emptive war by the UN against Iraq?
With the current situation in Iraq, it is difficult to establish
direct links between a regime like Saddam's, and the case for a just war against it. In the old days (WW2 and earlier) we had tinpot dictators who tried to expand their territory (Napoleon, Hitler) and it was easy to put together a case for a just war. Then we had the nuclear age, the Cold War, with each side (Russia and the US) knowing that to start a nuclear war would be futile because of Mutually Assured Destruction.
In this post nuclear age, the situation is different again. At no time in world history before 911 did we ever see the level of destruction and murder that we saw on 911, caused by a small terrorist group. From this, it is clear that world conflicts have moved into yet another phase. Far more people died on 911 as a result of terrorist outrage than were killed in the 1991 Gulf War. In 1982, we had our own war with Argentina who, under the command of the late General Galtieri, had invaded the Falkland Islands. A clear cut case of taking action against a tinpot aggressor whose ideas of expansionism had gone too far. In that war, only about 252 British servicemen lost their lives, and I believe the total tally was still much less than the tally for the 911 atrocities.
The world has changed with regard to conflict, since 1982 - or even since 1991. There are different forces at work. We now live with the daily threat of terrorist atrocities which would have been unthinkable even five years ago. What we had on 911 was not a bellicose act by a tinpot expansionist, but an orchestrated hate crime by a group of fanatics going under the umbrella of Islam.
In 1939, the argument was over Nazi expansionism. A clear cut case. We did not want Germany marching into other countries, but when they continued to do so, war was declared.
Today, the war is against terror. The difficulty is that the enemy is largely unseen. We do not know where OBL is. We do not know what plans al qa'eda has, or where they plan to strike next. We do our best - with the CIA using spy satellites and scanning the radio waves/mobile telephone trasmissions. And because much of this gathered intelligence has to remain secret, it's difficult to put a case to the general public, except in general terms.
It is believed that the day may come when Saddam uses WMD (again) or sells WMD to a third party. For people to compare Dubya to a fascist dictator is a nonsense when we look to Iraq. Saddam is the real dictator. Saddam is the one that has gone to war with five of his neighbouring countries. Saddam is the one who has launched Scuds against Israel. And Saddam is the one who has tortured and murdered, and gassed his own people in Northern Iraq.
We were soft on Iraq during the Clinton years but now Dubya, quite correctly in my view, is taking a tough line against Iraq. And why not? They
are in violation of UN resolutions enacted at the time of the Gulf War.
We can't show "proof" that Iraq has or will sell WMD to AQ or another terrorist group. We don't know the individuals that might be involved in such a transaction. But we do know that Saddam sponsors terrorism, and we do know that he is developing WMD. If he had nothing to hide, why else would he kick out the weapons inspectors? Why else would he forbid overflight of Iraq by U2 spy planes?
When the weather looks like turning to rain, we might wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella - much more sensible than waiting for the rain to start and then looking for an umbrella shop. By the same token, Dubya is right not to wait for another 911. It was the USA that was attacked on 911 - not the UN, not France, not Germany, not Belgium... and I don't see why America should have to go through some bureaucratic wrangle at the UN to safeguard its own interests.
I say again - Saddam has defied the UN. He has been given every chance to resolve the conflict peacefully. He has chosen not to. Saddam is the aggressor, not the US.
