Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Well, this recent report on Iraq has certainly left those leaders who were committed to Iraq skating on very thin ice. For those of you who don't know, the report states that the September 11 attacks had no relevance or support from Saddam Hussein, thus removing another reason for the war (now crossed off with WMDs). The statement that he was defying UN laws raises the question, Why wasn't the UN involved if he refused to cooperate with the UN? Why did America have to make the UN irrelevant and "go it alone"?

Maybe some of you guys would like to talk about this.

Seems fairly cut and dried to me, a bid to secure oil interests in the Middle East cloaked in the guise of America the Liberator whilst simultaneously trampling over the very human rights the administration was so claiming to champion.

 -Def.

An interesting version of logic you've got there.  The US made the UN irrelevant by going it alone?  The truth is the UN made itself irrelevant by refusing to take action when Saddam flouted its resolutions for 12 years.  Whatever you may think is the reason why the US "really" invaded Iraq, the fact remains that the UN undercut it's own authority by saying for over a decade, "This time we really mean it," and each time doing nothing.

If there is any danger to the UN posed by all this, its the danger of the last few holdouts in the world finally realizing that the UN is a sham, a barely held-together organization of nations with conflicting interests that only has "power" if all the participants are willing to play along.  And as the US has proven (and before it, Russia in Chechnya and France in Algeria, etc), its a simple matter to ignore the UN and go your own way whenever you like.

The UN has not been made irrelevant in the last year.  It has been irrelevant since 1948.



The answer here is adding up to be bad intelligence.  A decade's worth of it.  Before the war, it was "common knowledge" that Saddam had WMDs and only now are we piecing together how that assessment could have been so completely wrong.  You could argue it's a case of Bush hearing what he wanted to hear, and there may be some truth to that.  But he was no less convinced than his predecessor Clinton, or indeed most world leaders.  And it should be remembered that not so very long ago, when Clinton was in the White House, John Kerry was a fervent supporter of military action against Saddam, even if it did upset the UN (citing Russia and France in particular, he cried, "Where is their backbone?")

Like so many other things in this world, what side you're on often depends on your party affiliation.  Bush has stumbled into an ugly, costly and potentially politically ruinous mess in Iraq.  But I strongly believe he thought he was doing it for the right reasons, and that he'd be vindicated in the end.  Whether the American people are willing to forgive a miscalculation and, yes, failure on such a large scale we'll find out in November.

But as for what the UN thinks, I frankly don't give a tinker's darn.  Any organization that puts Libya on it's "Commission on Human Rights" obviously has its head so far up its rear end that it's beyond useless.

nightwing, did you know that in the 1920s and 30s, the League of Nations, established by America (but without America's support) attempted to stop a repeat of the First World War. However, this failed as nations ignored the League's attempts of appeasement. The UN had America's support, but with America having declared itself independant of the UN by this action, it has set a bad example for the rest of the world, allowing nations a set precedent to 'do whatever they want'. The UN was trying to solve the situation diplomatically. The US hurried through the diplomacy stage in its eagerness for war, and so, miscalculations were made.

It should be understood that, with America now free of UN process, theres no telling what sort of precedent this has set. The UN is an organisation to set up to try and stop WWIII, but as nations ignore its rulings, it has less ability to do this. And the French in Algeria and the Russians in Chechnya were dealing with internal affairs, something the UN can't really butt into. Alegria was a French colony, and the French were unwilling to allow its independance. So they had to suppress a rebellion. In Russia, it was a similar scenario. I am not taking sides, but this is just what happened.

So thus, its understandable why I am concerned that America hs destabilised the entire world. The repurcussions might not occur for some time, but I dare say it is only a matter of time.

I've read and re-read these sentences, but I'm at a loss to determine how you interpret them to support your position regarding Iraq.

For those of you following along without a dictionary, "appeasement" means "making concessions to avoid a fight".

First, let's get the history straight.  The League of Nations was proposed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as part of his "Fourteen Points" peace plan to end the World War.  Wilson worked with the leaders of the allies to establish the League.  The U.S. Senate, however, rejected the treaty and prevented U.S. participation.

In 1932, the League condemned Japan for invading Manchuria, but the League did not use its "collective security" clause to forcibly oppose the Japanese.  In 1935, the League condemned Italy as an aggressor for invading Ethiopia, and approved sanctions to punish Italy.  These sanctions had no teeth, however, because fundamental war materials, such as steel and oil, were exempt.  Japan and Italy discovered that the League was impotent.

The League was really out of the picture during the height of the appeasement process.  This was the policy followed by the French and British governments in the late 1930s to avoid war with Germany.  In 1936, Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland.  In 1938, Hitler annexed Austria.  There were protestations and hand-wringing, but no one attempted to use force to stop the Germans.  The French and British governments even sacrificed Czechoslovakia to appease Germany.  Each concession emboldened Hitler to demand more.  And France and Great Britain frittered away the time, allowing the Germans to re-arm, allowing Hitler to make secret pacts with Stalin, and allowing their zeal for peace to plunge them into war.

So, how do you relate this to the Iraq war?  Are you suggesting that the U.S. undermined the UN's attempts to appease Saddam Hussein?  I'll agree with you on that.  For over a decade, Hussein stalled and prevaricated.  Hussein discovered that the UN could be played for suckers, so he had no incentive to cooperate.  The U.S. did for Iraq what the French should have done for Germany in 1936.

Then again, maybe I misunderstood your analogy.  Are you suggesting that the U.S. undermined the UN by being an aggressor (like Japan, Italy, and Germany in the 1930s).  Okay, let's consider that.  If that's the case, why didn't France, Germany, and Russia introduce a Security Council resolution condemning the U.S. (and U.K., Austrialian, Polish, Spanish, etc.) aggression against Iraq?  Furthermore, why didn't they send their troops to defend Iraq?  Seems to me they are the one's undermining the UN, since they aren't opposing aggression.

You seem to be very good at pointing out the mistakes made by President Bush, but what if the intelligence was right and he took no action?  Would you have praised Bush for his restraint if al-Qaeda had acquired biological agents from Hussein and released them in Orlando or Tel Aviv or Sydney?

spaceman spiff, Bush acted on false pretences to pursue a neo-conservative goal. He heaped a load of out-of-date evidence and tried to use it to gain approval in the world community (which it really didn't do very well). The evidence is now completely false, and it is now being deemed an illegal war. Germany's annexation of Austria, the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Czechoslovakia were all attempts to stave off war, as they feared it could lead to a repeat of WWI.

now, those nations that maintained neutrality were saying that they had no love of Saddam, but were unwilling to shed blood on very shaky evidence. And now it is coming to light that they were correct in their stance. This is why they didn't oppose nor endorse the invasion. I have no love for Saddam, but with only 2% of the population percieving the coalition as liberators, I wonder how much longer the American will for war will hold.

During the UN Security Council debate in early 2003, it was generally accepted by the intelligence services of many nations that Iraq had WMDs or was working to develop them. The debate was whether or not the Security Council is serious about its resolutions. The U.S. and the U.K. held the consistent position that a resolution should be enforced. France chose the inconsistent position of voting for a resolution then refusing to enforce it. If the Security Council members don't take their resolutions seriously, why should Iraq? The invasion by the coalition was consistent with the Security Council resolutions that demanded compliance from Iraq.

Much nonsense is being broadcast and printed about the 9/11 commission's finding that Saddam Hussein was not involved in planning the attacks on September 11, 2001. President Bush never made that claim. He said that there were links between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The commission did not deny those links. If the U.S. intelligence agencies had given President Bush evidence that Hussein was behind the attacks, the U.S. would not have asked for a Security Council resolution at all. The President would have gone to the U.S. Congress for a declaration of war.

But the problem is that the economic sanctions were the UN's way of enforcing its resolutions. And it was stated that there were credible links between Saddam and bin Laden. The report shoots that reason down, as it said that there was no collaborative relationship between them. Thus, how can this be a part of the War on Terrorism, rather than a simple (but increasingly complicated) regime change?

UN sanctions were a joke.  All they did was keep food and meds from the Iraqi people while Hussein lived in palaces of Ivory and Gold.

I don't know how ideological or cynical everyone around here is, but I never thought that the war on Iraq was about liberating anyone or protecting us from WMD's. Especially as soon as we started attacking and Hussein didn't retaliate AT ALL.

My view of the war was simply that the United Empire of America (AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT) was expanding to the east, and sure this is not the most just cause, but having a sphere of influence (another one) in the middle-east wouldn't hurt. I think the big problem though is that big companies (Bush %$&-kissers) are reaping all the goods, while the young of our country are paying the price.

There was little resistance in the early days not because Hussein "turned the other cheek", but because his armies fell apart and his aides betrayed him.  Saddam's armies were emplaced to offer heavy resistance ...he himself promised "The Mother Of All Wars"... but in the end, our troops found the Iraqis' light and heavy ordinance all over the countryside where they'd left them and run away.  There were many reports that Iraqi officers in the field gave orders to attack, only to have their men say "no thanks" and march en masse to the Coalition forces with their hands over their heads.

I think Saddam was more shocked than anyone that Iraq fell essentially without a fight.  Certainly his family members who've spoken to the press feel he was betrayed from inside his government.

As for motive, I don't for a moment imagine we went over there to add Iraq to our "empire." It's a useless hell-hole, for one thing, and too far away and too surrounded by hostiles to govern, for another.  And we already have a "sphere of influence" in the area, in Qatar and to some extent Saudi Arabia.  I think the idea of the war was to show we were serious about going after terrorists wherever they might be, with the hopes of scaring various governments into ceasing their covert deals with terrorists, lest they be invaded next.  You can argue the merits of that kind of thinking...certainly it still adds up to a "pre-emptive" war, or even as Al Gore has alleged an "elective" one...but the notion that we did it for oil or money is nuts.  That's a typical conspiracy theory from liberals who place capitalism and profit at the top of the list of humanity's evils.

Though I understand that it was an attack on terrorism when we went after Hussein, it seems that this wasn't the best of targets. If we were going after fundamentalist middle-easter type terrorists, we should have gone after Saudi Arabia. If on the other hand we were going against a country with a disturbed leader who HAS WMD's in possesion, than N. Korea was a more realistic target who we know HAS WMD. Of course, what would we really gain from that? The end of communism? No wait, there's Castro.....why's he still there?

Anyway, concervatives like to dismiss the fact that there is plenty to gain from a country like Iraq. If not from that place itself, than by all the bs that exists in our own government and its policies. Regardless of what the man's media or the anti-man's media is feeding us, there are some people profiting in this war, unfortunately its not the tax-paying-middle-class-hard-working-group....well at least not me :( but then again I'm not really middle class I'm a poor student.....yeah *sigh*

I still have mixed feelings about the war, but you're definitely right about Saudi Arabia getting away scot free.  Bush went out of his way to use blunt terms when he said, in essence, we will come after you whether you are a terrorist, or a country that harbors terrorists...we make no distinction and one is as guilty as the other.  But in practice, he quickly relented on this threat by turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's terrorist ties, ties that go all the way up to the royal family members who helped bankroll the 9/11 death squads.

The trouble with painting things in black and white is that sooner or later you get bitten by your own rhetoric.  It happened to Bush the Elder (41) when he declared "no new taxes!" only to raise them anyway in a move that was politically necessary (and which laid the groundwork for the economic boom of the 90s) but made him look like a hypocrite anyway, and helped him lose re-election.  "Plain talk" is all well and fine, but when you talk in absolutes, you better be ready for the fall-out when you start making compromises.

You are very right about the clear talk, nightwing. Though Bush may have gone after Sadam Hussein for all the wrong reasons, I feel that well Hussein is out of power (for now anyway) and that's a pretty good thing. If only he could now find a way to stop our troops from continuously being killed, OR produce Bin Ladden a bit before the next election, well he might just be around a while longer.

Good move on Kerry, picking Edwards, now at least the man who should be representing Democrats will be around to back him up.