The first one was our fault and we (UK and US) backed him. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have taken steps to deal with the second one, as we did. In international law, that's where the line is drawn - you can do what you wish in your own back yard, but no messing up someone elses.
That attitude, while sometimes harsh, is pragmatic. There are dubious regiemes all over the world who take part in the sort of activities you describe. Why aren't we marching on Harari (sp?) to unseat Mugabe right now? Why aren't we threatening to nuke Saudi Arabia - after all, as well as having a despotic regieme they too have in the past (and presumably still) sold weapons and provided funds to groups like Al-Queda. Hell, Bush himself is doing pretty well for environmental disasters as well as social and moral evils - they'll be drilling up Alaska any day now, he's determined to continue spewing out carbons like there's no tomorrow in defiance of the US' treaty obligations, he's quite happy to continue with the death penalty despite the overwhelming evidence about the racial and sexual bias with which it is applied.
his ability to lob missiles over all his neighbours, and his capacity to use biological warfare
That's true of half the states in the region. It's true of the US, and out of the two of them, which is the one determined to have a war?
I disagree that it's too comfortable for us to say "Stay out" - it's actually much more uncomfortable to sit here and stick to the rules while Hussein has his way in Bagdad. The problem is that according to international law and convetion that's the right thing to do. If we concede the principle that it's OK for one country to invade another to try and change it's regieme from something they don't approve of to something they do without at the very least the overwhelming approval of the international community, we open the door to all sorts of problems, religious states attacking secular states for example.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Re: hmmmm...
Date: January 30th, 2003 09:11 am (UTC)From:The first one was our fault and we (UK and US) backed him. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have taken steps to deal with the second one, as we did. In international law, that's where the line is drawn - you can do what you wish in your own back yard, but no messing up someone elses.
That attitude, while sometimes harsh, is pragmatic. There are dubious regiemes all over the world who take part in the sort of activities you describe. Why aren't we marching on Harari (sp?) to unseat Mugabe right now? Why aren't we threatening to nuke Saudi Arabia - after all, as well as having a despotic regieme they too have in the past (and presumably still) sold weapons and provided funds to groups like Al-Queda. Hell, Bush himself is doing pretty well for environmental disasters as well as social and moral evils - they'll be drilling up Alaska any day now, he's determined to continue spewing out carbons like there's no tomorrow in defiance of the US' treaty obligations, he's quite happy to continue with the death penalty despite the overwhelming evidence about the racial and sexual bias with which it is applied.
his ability to lob missiles over all his neighbours, and his capacity to use biological warfare
That's true of half the states in the region. It's true of the US, and out of the two of them, which is the one determined to have a war?
I disagree that it's too comfortable for us to say "Stay out" - it's actually much more uncomfortable to sit here and stick to the rules while Hussein has his way in Bagdad. The problem is that according to international law and convetion that's the right thing to do. If we concede the principle that it's OK for one country to invade another to try and change it's regieme from something they don't approve of to something they do without at the very least the overwhelming approval of the international community, we open the door to all sorts of problems, religious states attacking secular states for example.