Iran... ok, now we have a problem.

[DanaC]

TWe are joined through history. This we must agree on...

Agreed. I would have it no other way. *smiles*

When I rail against decisions by the American administration, that is as far as it goes. I have never ceased to feel culturally and historically linked to America as a country and Americans as a People. I doubt there's many people in the UK that don't feel that bond of kinship. In a way that's what makes it so frustrating when the Administration acts with such disdain towards us.

[Happy Monkey]

A statute of limitations is about punishment. Was the entire Iraq war a punishment for Saddam? Well, um, yay, I guess. He's one of the many dead. We win.

Yugoslavia wasn't about punishment, it was about stopping something currently in progress.

[DanaC]

Well put HM.

Thus, Yugoslavia was illegal and unjustified.

The action against Yugoslavia was not taken because Milosevic was a dictator. It was taken in order to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent what may have been edging into genocide.

The mere fact that a country is ruled by a dictator, however unpleasant that might make life in that country, is not alone justification for invasion.

Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, by anyone's measure, but it's NOT OK since it was sold as a threat.

More of a threat to whom? To America? Oh come on, who are
you kidding?.....to the UK? I really don't think so. To its neighbours? Well maybe, but if we invade every country that is a threat to its neighbours, then we'd better get a fucking big task force over to some of the African countries. Iraq was not a threat to us, it was merely sold as a threat to us in order to justifiy military action. Yugoslavia was not a threat to us, but nor did anybody try to tell us otherwise.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

More of a threat to whom? To America? Oh come on, who are you kidding?.....to the UK?

Yes and yes, Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, both to the US and the UK.

An existential threat, maybe not. But as a bad actor? Sure.

Iraq was a terrible threat to "international law", as a system of sanctions devolved into Iraqi poverty, and a UN scandal involving billions upon billions of dollars in oil contracts scuttled any interest in cutting Gordian's knot.

And Iraq was indeed a heavy sponsor of terrorism; see Abu Nidal organization, payments to suicide bombers, and the sorta-not-disputed Salman Pak for just three examples.

[Flint]

You know that we don't invade every country that is "a terrible threat to international law" or "a heavy sponsor of terrorism."

[Undertoad]

A statute of limitations is about justice and prosecution. A sentence is about punishment.

You have answered my question, in a roundabout way. If they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".

[Flint]

You know that we don't invade every contry that is doing something bad, or has ever done something bad.

[DanaC]

You have answered my question, in a roundabout way. If they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".

Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?

It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".

[Flint]

Originally Posted by DanaC

... It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".

But it does set the precedent that we can invade any country we want, if they have ever done anything bad, ever.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".

We have established your position: if they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".

Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?

Can you think of an event between those difficult and terrible situations, and 2003, that might have changed the global response to such things?

Think hard.

[Undertoad]

I guess I need to be clear: I'm not saying the war was a good idea. I'm saying it was more complex than you nutters want to write off.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I guess I need to be clear: I'm not saying the war was a good idea. I'm saying it was more complex than you nutters want to write off.

You're also pointing out that the justifications for the Balkan deal were similar and the left needs to quit pretending to be antiwar. Resisting the urge to bomb our way to sunshine and happiness is beyond our present political system.

[Flint]

I don't know whether you've been clear or not; I'm just tail-posting. But, for kicks, define: nutters.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm just tail-posting.

I'm just stalking tail posters today

[Undertoad]

I tend to use terms from the British-American dictionary when talking to Brits