[ChrisD]

Originally posted by jaguar
So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right?

Amongst other reasons, sure. Human rights violations are despicable (and don't misunderstand me to turn a blind eye when the US is responsible for the same violations).

And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

The rhetoric aside, yes, UN international "law". I do believe that we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of Iraq out (as well as other countries, but we won't get into that here), but I also believe that going through the UN is as "lawful" as you can get. Law's authority comes from recognition of said law, and the UN is widely recognized (simply by the participation of many world countries) as a lawful organization, although by no means the supreme world law. What law, you ask? The law of resolution 1441.

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

Er, yes? While I see that you are trying to go for "two wrongs don't make a right" by using "right" with a note of sarcasm, your analogy fails in that it was not only the US who helped, but the US with UN forces. The UN (and the world at large) generally approved of the remedy to the crisis in Kuwait.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones?

Be more specific?

Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice?

Scathing sarcasm (again) aside, no. There were a multitude of reasons, some stronger than others for different people.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Some will argue (for or against) other points more strongly than others. Others will try to inflate one argument as the sole reason for us going to war, when I'd like to believe that it is the sum total of the aforementioned reasons for deciding to go to war with Iraq, also given that post 9/11, the climate of the United States tolerance of such sum totals has decreased.

Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs?

"Yes."

If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment?

An excellent point. Many will say that even the USA is in possession of such WMD. Or "what about North Korea? - Surely nuclear weapons are more dangerous than some mustard gas?" To which I respond that yes, perhaps there are other countries who are in possession of those WMD. However, one key factor here is very, very important to recognize: that behind the wheel is the man who has tested the viability of his weapon systems on his own people. A minority population, to be clear, but Iraqis nonetheless. Most WMD that people have in the world stem from such (silly) ideas of mutual assured destruction. You got the nukes? We got more, nyah nyah. However, it is quite clear that a cursory analysis of Saddams character reveals he would hesitate less than a Planck time in pushing the button or giving the order. He simply needs a reason or a time he believes he can get away with it.

Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

Well, we aren't "colonizing" Iraq, nor are we technically "invading" although a military presence there will be a requisite for the regime change. But yes, currently I would say that we are the only country in the world in the unique position of playing 'policeman'. It is unfortunate that others are not willing to assist an oppressed country in times of need, but so be it. Like I said before, with great power comes great responsibility.

I hope you can clear this up for me.

Any questions? :p