No humanitarian case for Iraq war, says rights group

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by toontra, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #1
    This appeared in the Independent today - LINK

    This is combined with the total lack of WMD. Can someone remind me of the justifications given for the war, please?
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Whether liberal or conservative, I think that most of us here were at least a bit sceptical about the WMDs. I had an "I don't know" view. I stated early on that I thought it was a mistake to emphasize WMDs as the rationale; there were plenty of other reasons. However, given the amount of prior support/belief about their existence on the part of the previous administration, I surely couldn't have claimed the WMDs didn't exist.

    Insofar as getting rid of the Hussein regime, we had as much justification as we did in Serbia, and a heckuva lot more national interest.

    The linked article implies that Hussein's genocidal attacks on the Kurds happened so long ago that it's "old news". It seems to downplay or denigrate the graves that have been found in Iraq since the invasion, with the group murders by the regime.

    'Rat
     
  3. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #3
    I do remember you did not argue for the war on the grounds of WMDs. But what do you think about the misleading way the war was sold to the rest of the American people. Pretty smarmy, huh?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    No, maybe you were, but most of the conservatives here were not the least bit skeptical about WMDs. We were told they were there, laying around like soy on an Iowa field. We were told our troops WOULD be attacked with chem/bio weapons when they crossed a line, and within 45 minutes of Saddam's order. We were told he was within 6 months of having a nu-cu-lar weapon. And all this while there were inspectors in-country telling us they'd come up empty handed with the best intel we could supply them. The level of support/belief of 'previous administrations' ie Bill Clinton was not such that he had the confidence to go to war with Saddam over what he saw. He was also considering the problem of the Middle East as a whole, trying to ease the Palestinian/Israeli thing and realizing that toppling Saddam probably wasn't the best way to build trust in Americans with Arabs. I have no doubts that if Bill Clinton was positive Saddam was within 6 months of building a nuke, and had an interest in using it against us or an ally he would have invaded Iraq as well.

    No, in Serbia there was a process of mass killing ongoing at the time that we could do something about. So far, no evidence has surfaced that Saddam was engaged in mass killings in the year leading up to his ouster. In fact, the last time he seems to have engaged in that was at the end of the last Gulf War, when we betrayed those who tried to rise up against Saddam and were crushed while we did nothing. Serbia was a humanitarian mission from day one, Iraq has morphed into one because all other justifications have fallen flat.
     
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    'Rat,

    I would remind you that no US troops marched into Belgrade to remove Milosevic. That was done by the Serbian people themselves. Not that the neoconservatives didn't call for Clinton to send the troops in and put Milosevic's head on a pike, but the Clinton administration had enough sense to know that he had the consensus of NATO to stop the massacre of Kosovar Albanians and no more. Compare that to Bush and Iraq and I think you have a 180 degree difference.
     
  6. toontra thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #6
    'Rat,

    Kenneth Roth (director of Human Rights Watch) was interviewed on radio here in the UK yesterday at length, and would disagree strongly with you. His organization is not against military intervention where it can prevent mass slaughter. He's not even against unilateral action where the UN can't agree or act quickly enough!

    What he does say is that the threshold for military invasion should be high, and such action should only be taken in the most extreme circumstances (ie Rwanda, Serbia). As mactastic says, in Iraq there was no present, recent or impending humanitarian disaster.

    This also impinges on the legal justification we were given in the UK for military action. You would have thought that if our country was to embark on an invasion, humanitarian grounds would provide ample legal basis for such action. But, revealingly, only days prior to the war last year, our chief advocate declared action legal under international law because of a technical breach of a 12-year old UN resolution, not because of atrocities, breaches of human rights or other humanitarian problems. Why?
     

Share This Page