Iraq topic again huh, i love these
Lets start by stating a few misconceptions:
1. Iraqi people want us there protecting them
False: People would rather subjugate themselves to a totalitarian ruler of their own making then have an occupying force doing the ruling.
Examples of this concept can be found in some of the responses of Iraqi's towards the death sentence of Saddam, were you have people stating they would rather live under his rule than the current one.
2. Terrorist are attacking the US because they hate our freedoms.
False: This one is extremely misleading. If one were to take the time and do some research one would find that the majority of the grievances in this region arise out of hatred towards policy. In fact the concept of jihad which I'm sure you have heard of undoubtedly a million times on the news or on this forum is being used here to justify their actions in order to drive out an invading force.
Like i stated before they want to remove the "infidel," in this case the invading coalition forces, IE US, from Iraq.
Well back to Iraq
The majority of the arguments which we are having here can be made mute of people begin to look at some basic facts.
1. Al-queda had no connections with Saddam Hussein
Reasoning-- If you take a course on the Middle East you will quickly be introduced to a concept called personal ism. The style of rule through out the majority of this region falls under a style called patrimonial rule, meaning the leader emanates his rule down to those bellow him. Tools at his disposal, for example, conflict. The leader creates conflict within his own government in order to avoid concentrating power within any given area, so for one to assume that Saddam would benefit with having Al-queda run around Iraq they are simply wrong and don't know squat about how people in that region function, governmentally. Since essentially Al-queda would be a source of power thus diminishing his own...not going to happen.
2. WMD there so we should attack.
This was clearly not the case based on the lack of any sort of evidence to there having been WMDs. While some attribute the violation of the UN resolutions as reason enough to invade Iraq one must ignore the fact that other countries through out the world ignore such resolutions. But how do they get away with it?
This area falls into the real of International law and its application to the situation. So to help you out a bit understand this I'm going to quote a lovely piece of work done back in 1960 in the American Journal of International Law, vol 54, No. 2.
"Sanctions of the UN are, as far as their structure is concerned, old-fashioned, just as under General International Law; they are directed against states, are based on collective responsibility, and do not distinguish between criminal and civil sanctions. But whereas General International Law knowns only individuals, and not collective, sanctions, the Charter [United Nations Charter] knows only collective, and not individual, sanctions."
So with that said i was aiming that at the sanctions placed on the people of Iraq during that 10 year period of time. There is extensive debate on whether it was justifiable use of sanctions, since those that suffered the most were the people themselves and not the ruler. While you may ask what's the point of well...pointing this out i once again go back to IL and rights inherent to being a state. Those of which fall under self-determination. Now violating the resolution does not give immediate room for a justified invasion, for one must, under the Charter, proceed with other peaceful measures before contemplating use of force. If that is the case, one most note of the Downing Street memo and the time of its being written, IE prior to invasion, so if all other measures are to be exhausted before invasion why then already begin to state that you plan to invade as if the talks were not going to provide remedy to the problem?
The reason one must address this issue before attacking any other issue is mainly to do with the justification o f the US being there, if it is not present then how can one argue for it?
Now for the current situation....without a doubt the country is in a state of Civil War, thus one has to conclude that the Vietnam paradigm is going to surface and one day we may have an Iraq paradigm. And by Vietnam paradigm i mean that after Vietnam we basically learned not to mess in other people's civil wars and then because of it stayed out of armed conflicts for some time.
Also, another thing to note is that the UN charter also states that there should be no military intervention in them since essentially they are state matters those of which foreign states should not meddle with. I could be wrong, since I've been reading too many articles/papers lately, but i'm almost 100% sure its in there.
Last edited by Fen321 (2006-11-15 20:14:03)