Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:03 am (UTC)Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.