Plenty.
Lets start with law.
Now sadly your link to resolution 1441 was broken, although i managed to track down a copy, for the purposes of this discussion i think what matters in the above mentioned resolution is the question of whether Iraq is in material breach based on whether there are any "false statements or omissions" in Iraq's list.
Now while, based on anecdotal evidence, you declare Iraq to be in breach. This alone obviously does not mean Iraq is, I'm yet to see hard evidence it is, we have yes, plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is, a few 10 year old shells in the corner of a mostly disused warehouse, and missiles that may or may not carry WMD warheads that may or may not have been destroyed. This, it seems does not either constitute a material breach. Despite powell's wonderful discrediting campaign with his last speech he did not produce any hard evidence and what he did produce was questionable at best. If you want to play the 'legal action' game, you're going to have to do better than that.
My second paragraph was simply paraphrasing what you said for purposes below.
Well the US played a pivotal role in getting Saddam into power in an era of anticommunist paranoia, along with many other bloodythirsty dictators, does the US's moral obligation only extend to those regimes the US is responsible for in the first place or to home-grown regimes such as many notable African leaders and places such as say, Burma.
Quote:
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
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
|
Now possession and willingness to use WMD is an interesting one, if as you seem to be suggesting, it is a moral issue. Primarily because many of those agents were directly supplied by US companies with the full knowledge of the US government. Doesn't the virtual sanctioning of such activities, since they were sold even after they were used on civilian populations thereby mean any moral argument based on this is null and void?
Terrorist links is another odd one, in short, what terrorist links? I mean i've seen poor old Powell and make a statement along the lines of "despite Bin Laden calling Saddam in infidel and decrying his regime he clearly has links to him because he does not support the US invasion of Iraq", if that doesn't sound pathetic i don't know what does. It seems despite the best efforts of the worlds biggest intel network, no concrete links have been found, if you no something we don't, please, do tell, otherwise i'd advise you to omit it from the list.
Corporate Interests? I'm not sure if you support a war for all these reasons or are merely listing the reasoning behind such a war from an impartial bystanders point of view but surely invading and destroying a sovereign state over corporate interests, with possible strategic interests is if anything, worse than they invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which was for strategic reasons.
North Korea has a history of selling missile technology, Iraq does not. North Korea also exports drugs, fake US currency, and now is producing significant numbers of nuclear weaponry. THe leader of the DPRK is clearly nuts. Saddam while a bloodythirsty leader of a despotic regime, is very, very sane and clearly pretty damn smart. The CIA's own report had Saddam down a 'low' threat - unless provoked. He's smart enough to know that doing anything like that would guarantee his destruction, his ultimate aim is survival.
I assume after the invasion of Iraq (what would you call moving in thousands of sovereign troops into a sovereign state, removing the existing government and replacing it with one of your choice) a government of some sort will be set up, it's membership and funding will be decided entirely by the US. Thus it will become what is known as a 'client' state, a British term from the 19th century for a state that you exploit for resources that is all but in your pocket. Such control i'd classify in the same category as a colonization, what would you call it?