The legitimacy of the Iraq war

[BobG]

What is inference of this comment, that the US has no right to respond to WTC events because they don't measure up to WWII?

An appropriate response to the WTC would be the invasion of Afghanistan, followed by some serious pressure on Pakistan to prevent al-Qaeda from taking up residence in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. Given Musharraf's sudden condemnation of terrorism and commitment to being a partner in the war against terror as soon as Afghanistan was invaded, it would have been tough, politically, to just continue the Afghanistan invasion right across the border into our new ally, Pakistan, but we should have gotten a lot more cooperation from Pakistan. As it was, more than half the money we sent to our new ally went to strengthening Pakistan's forces on the Pakistan-India border. We got ripped off by the leader of a country that has done more to spread nuclear weapon technology than any other country in the world.

Calling on the elimination of three nations uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks is not an appropriate response.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

 

[Nebula815]

However Bush did seem quite intent on the issue... I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly he was talking about toppling Saddams regime since he was first inaugurated which was nearly a year prior to 9/11. They were intentionally flying planes over Iraq to see if they would get shot down so they could invade the country harshly and quickly. (they had forces waiting for this to occur... it never did, however Iraq had sensed that an Invasion was imminent and was uping it's defensive AA weapon count. Not that it really helped them at all).

9/11 was just an excuse for Bush to follow through with the long-held American 'dream' of 'liberatin' Iraq. What I fail to understand is if they honestly felt that they were doing the best for Iraq and the world then why did they make so much up or base so much on 'circumstantial evidence'... Nothing was solid, no WMDs were found that the Americans had claimed the had... I think that Iraq is now worse off than it originally was, things have certainly improved since the initial invasion but the country is by no means better than when Hussein was in command...

I do not think they made any of it up. In their minds, they truly believed Saddam had the weapons. The soldiers when invading had to have full NBC gear on, as they fully expected they would be attacked.

One thing to also keep in mind on Iraq is that it was President Clinton who made it official U.S. policy to remove Saddam from Iraq. George W. Bush just went and actually did it.

The thing is, how do we know that in the future Iraq would not have become a danger? That Saddam would not have begun a new nuclear and/or chemical weapons program, and that he would have truly become a threat? Or his sons? Especially with Iran also working towards such goals, not good to have nations like that pointing nukes at one another.

Or imagine for example if George W. Bush, BEFORE 9/11, had changed the U.S.'s handling of terrorism from a law enforcement issue, as it was, to a military issue (as he did after 9/11). Imagine they had begun implementing waterboarding, Patriot Act, surveillance, rendition, Gitmo, etc...and then thus 9/11 was prevented and never happened.

Well now we would be sitting here talking about how George W. Bush WAAAAAY over-stepped his power for completely un-necessary reasons, as the nation never was attacked, and it was not going to be attacked, and all that stuff about terrorists attacking the U.S. and being able to do anything on a grand scale was silly, and how anyone who believed that tale about terrorists possibly hijacking airliners to smash into buildings was nuts, etc...I mean GWB was heavily criticized for all that stuff AFTER 9/11 too.

Perhaps Iraq is similar. Many say it was pointless to have invaded it, but if we had not, the world might see things differently. Maybe if we had instead invaded Iran for example (which IS dangerous), now it would be Iraq developing a nuke we would be concerned about.

It sort of reminds me of a quote from Henry Kissinger's book, "Diplomacy:"

"...there is a vast difference between the perspective of an analyst and that of a statesman. The analyst can choose which problem he wishes to study, whereas the statesman's problems are imposed on him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion; the overwhelming challenge to the statesman is the pressure of time. The analyst runs no risk. If his conclusions prove wrong, he can write another treatise. The statesman is permitted only one guess; his mistakes are irretrievable. The analyst has available to him all the facts; he will be judged on his intellectual power. The statesman must act on assessments that cannot be proved at the time that he is making them; he will be judged by history and on the basis of how wisely he managed the inevitable change and, above all, by how well he preserves the peace.

 

[Nebula815]

How, exactly, does that give the US the right to continue the war?

Because when you violate a cease-fire, you have officially ended it, meaning the other guy can retaliate.

 

[BobG]

The thing is, how do we know that in the future Iraq would not have become a danger? That Saddam would not have begun a new nuclear and/or chemical weapons program, and that he would have truly become a threat? Or his sons? Especially with Iran also working towards such goals, not good to have nations like that pointing nukes at one another.

Or imagine for example if George W. Bush, BEFORE 9/11, had changed the U.S.'s handling of terrorism from a law enforcement issue, as it was, to a military issue (as he did after 9/11). Imagine they had begun implementing waterboarding, Patriot Act, surveillance, rendition, Gitmo, etc...and then thus 9/11 was prevented and never happened.

If we don't know, then the war doesn't qualify as a legitimate pre-emptive war.

Since 1841, when Secretary of State Daniel Webster laid out the US position, our policy toward pre-emptive force is that it's justified only in the presence of an imminent threat, must be necessary for self-defense, only be used after nonlethal measures and attempts to dissuade the adversary from acting had failed, plus be limited to dealing just with the immediate threat and discriminate between armed/unarmed and innocent/guilty.

If you want to argue that that policy should be changed in light of how fast things can happen in the present day, then that's a valid issue. Just keep in mind that that's a two edged sword. If a single person is going to make a decision about using pre-emptive force because the damage from a threat to the US could do irreparable damage to the US before the US could respond normally, then the threat of a bad decision by that single individual doing irreparable harm before his actions can be corrected is just as great.

Any damage done by a foolish invasion of Iraq pale in comparison other mistakes a President could make and those risks are absolutely unavoidable.

Giving the President authorization to use military force in a situation where the President supposedly hasn't even decided force is necessary was truly reckless behavior, however. Having to assume certain real and serious risks isn't an excuse to assume every risk ranked lower than the most serious. (Congress's authorization to use military force was given before UN Resolution 1441 was even passed, let alone before the UN decided whether violations were serious enough to warrant military action. I suppose we should be grateful Congress at least changed the wording of the resolution, since the original draft would have authorized Bush to implement military force anywhere in the Middle East in response to anything he saw as a possible threat.)

 

[BobG]

Because when you violate a cease-fire, you have officially ended it, meaning the other guy can retaliate.

Which other guy? The guy you had the agreement with or any guy at random?

With the next question being - what agreement with the US did Hussein violate?

And the question after that being - what type of retaliation for what type of violation? Is it anything goes? Or does the retaliation have to be proportional to the violation?

 

[mheslep]

An appropriate response to the WTC would be the invasion of Afghanistan, followed by some serious pressure on Pakistan to prevent al-Qaeda from taking up residence in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. ...

I grant that's a valid argument, but it doesn't address the 911 - WWII comparison you inserted earlier. Why put that in?

Calling on the elimination of three nations uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks is not an appropriate response.

There is no call for the elimination or destruction of those three nations in that Bush speech. There's a call not to be "indifferent" to the actions of those nations, which continued to be the the policy of the later Bush administration and now the apparent policy of the Obama administration. If the objection is to use of the label "evil", note:

Evil does exist in the world

 

[Sorry!]

With the next question being - what agreement with the US did Hussein violate?

And the question after that being - what type of retaliation for what type of violation? Is it anything goes? Or does the retaliation have to be proportional to the violation?

Not that I'm against anything that you are saying but I am pretty sure that Iraq was flying in no-fly zones and continuously pushing the boundaries of restrictions set up against them. They also shot at American and British jets with AA fire, I do not know of any planes shot down though.

I think a major reason why people 'may' have thought that Iraq was beginning to develop WMD was because they expelled the investigators etc. Why would they do this though? Cause America, yet again, was being a nuissance to the world... these people were spying on Iraq for America. lol? I'd give them the boot from my country too. A country with a policy that is dead set towards getting me removed from power (America was funding opposition forces) and I find out they are spying on me through people I supposedly 'must' keep in the country doing their job? Screw that.

I am against everything Hussein did to his people and how he ran his country but that is the only reason that I could see being used as a reason to go to war and topple the regime (as BobG pointed out freeing the Iraqis was the only reason which even existed).

Is it a legitimate reason though?

Who do we attack next?

 

[BobG]

Not that I'm against anything that you are saying but I am pretty sure that Iraq was flying in no-fly zones and continuously pushing the boundaries of restrictions set up against them. They also shot at American and British jets with AA fire, I do not know of any planes shot down though.

This occurred in American and British roles as part of a UN coalition. A subtle difference, but it establishes who is responsible for deciding the appropriate response for violations.

I think a major reason why people 'may' have thought that Iraq was beginning to develop WMD was because they expelled the investigators etc. Why would they do this though? Cause America, yet again, was being a nuissance to the world... these people were spying on Iraq for America. lol? I'd give them the boot from my country too. A country with a policy that is dead set towards getting me removed from power (America was funding opposition forces) and I find out they are spying on me through people I supposedly 'must' keep in the country doing their job? Screw that.

Another major reason is that quite a few people thought Iraq would be crazy to destroy their major defense against an Iranian invasion. If you were Hussein, would you be willing to trust the same coalition that ousted you from Kuwait to do the same to Iran when Iran invaded Iraq?

This wasn't long after the end of the Iraq-Iran war and there were quite a few that felt Iraq's chemical weapons were the only thing that deterred Iran from marching all the way to Baghdad once the tide turned in Iran's favor. In fact, the danger in destroying their primary defense against Iran was the most legitimate reason for doubting that Iraq had actually destroyed their weapons.

The fact that no evidence of an existing weapons program could be found was an annoying detail, but surely Iraq had to at least maintain the capability to quickly activate their chemical weapons program quickly even if it wasn't currently producing weapons.

The problem is that you need the weapons to exist, now, if the threat is really an imminent threat.

 

[BobG]

I grant that's a valid argument, but it doesn't address the 911 - WWII comparison you inserted earlier. Why put that in?

Because I don't think Bush-Cheney, et al, saw al-Qaeda as that serious of a threat. They were more valuable as an excuse to pursue other goals than they were a threat to be neutralized.

The fact of the matter is that they weren't totally off base in that assessment (hence putting the number of casualties into perspective). A terrorist organization isn't going to directly threaten the security of a nation like the United States.

The "value" of a WTC type incident to al-Qaeda is the increase in prestige for an anti-US organization such as al-Qaeda. The "value" of a WTC type incident to neo-cons is the ability to generate support for policies the neo-cons felt the US should have been pursuing all along.

 

[russ_watters]

That's all nice, bob - I think most people agree that the US went against the will of the UN and in hindsight only 1 out of 3 justifications had any real validity - but I think what people are interested in for the purpose of this thread is if the invasion of Iraq was a crime. You haven't explicitly stated one way or another if your intention with all of that was to support the argument that it was a crime. Was that your point? If not, do you think there is any validity to the belief that the invasion itself was a crime?

 

[Nebula815]

If we don't know, then the war doesn't qualify as a legitimate pre-emptive war.

At the time, they thought they did know, is how I see it.

Since 1841, when Secretary of State Daniel Webster laid out the US position, our policy toward pre-emptive force is that it's justified only in the presence of an imminent threat, must be necessary for self-defense, only be used after nonlethal measures and attempts to dissuade the adversary from acting had failed, plus be limited to dealing just with the immediate threat and discriminate between armed/unarmed and innocent/guilty.

Well the Bush administration thought very much that Iraq was an imminent threat, and went through the various non-lethal measures to try to convince Saddam to reveal the WMD they thought he had.

If you want to argue that that policy should be changed in light of how fast things can happen in the present day, then that's a valid issue. Just keep in mind that that's a two edged sword. If a single person is going to make a decision about using pre-emptive force because the damage from a threat to the US could do irreparable damage to the US before the US could respond normally, then the threat of a bad decision by that single individual doing irreparable harm before his actions can be corrected is just as great.

I agree.

Any damage done by a foolish invasion of Iraq pale in comparison other mistakes a President could make and those risks are absolutely unavoidable.

Giving the President authorization to use military force in a situation where the President supposedly hasn't even decided force is necessary was truly reckless behavior, however. Having to assume certain real and serious risks isn't an excuse to assume every risk ranked lower than the most serious. (Congress's authorization to use military force was given before UN Resolution 1441 was even passed, let alone before the UN decided whether violations were serious enough to warrant military action. I suppose we should be grateful Congress at least changed the wording of the resolution, since the original draft would have authorized Bush to implement military force anywhere in the Middle East in response to anything he saw as a possible threat.)

IMO, I do not think the UN would authorize the use of force in the face of a truly imminent threat. It is a corrupt organization. For example, when Iran gets a nuke, I doubt the UN will seek to do much of anything.

Which other guy? The guy you had the agreement with or any guy at random?

With the next question being - what agreement with the US did Hussein violate?

And the question after that being - what type of retaliation for what type of violation? Is it anything goes? Or does the retaliation have to be proportional to the violation?

The "other guy" being the United States. Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire, and as such the 2003 invasion of Iraq can be considered a continuation of the war that started in 1991.

The cease-fire was UN Resolution 687, and Resolution 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.

As for retaliation, I think that depends on what type of attack. If country A lobs a few dozen bombs into a city in country B, then country B should not respond by just lobbing the same proportion of bombs back into country A, they should do everything they can to destroy the ability of country A to execute any future such attacks.

Regarding what Saddam violated (or supposedly violated), they were the following UN resolutions:

17 UN Security Council Resolutions

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
• Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
• Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
• States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
• Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
• "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
• "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
• Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
• "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
• "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
• "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
• "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
• "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
• "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
• Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
• Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
• Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Because I don't think Bush-Cheney, et al, saw al-Qaeda as that serious of a threat. They were more valuable as an excuse to pursue other goals than they were a threat to be neutralized.

I think Bush and Cheney have, and still do, see al-Qaeda as a very serious threat.

The fact of the matter is that they weren't totally off base in that assessment (hence putting the number of casualties into perspective). A terrorist organization isn't going to directly threaten the security of a nation like the United States.

How do you know this? A terrorist organization could do serious damage to a nation like the United States if left to get away with itself for too long.

Suppose before hitting the WTC, they had flown two planes straight into the White House and the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. What if the president was in the White House at said time?

Some may say, "Oh, they'd have people standing by to watch out for that," yet there was a guy who flew his plane directly over the White House, then you have those two who just got into the White House uninvited recently.

Or if terrorists are ever able to detonate a form of large bomb or chemical weapon in say a place like NYC or Los Angelos (or in multiple cities).

Or if they detonate a nuke, even a small one, the simple fear it would create could paralyze the nation in many ways.

The "value" of a WTC type incident to al-Qaeda is the increase in prestige for an anti-US organization such as al-Qaeda. The "value" of a WTC type incident to neo-cons is the ability to generate support for policies the neo-cons felt the US should have been pursuing all along.

Neoconservatives only will use something like a terrorist attack on the United States that is serious (9/11 was an act of war), to rally support for policies to defeat terrorism. As said, the main justification for Iraq (or most publicized) was not 9/11, it was WMD and Saddam's supposedly being an imminent threat.

 

[Sorry!]

Most of those have to do with the inspectors, it has already been made clear that the inspectors were kicked out because they were spying for the United States.

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.

Clearly this had already been done. Why should Iraq again allow inspectors in when they had already kicked them out for spying? That's stupid.

Something that should also be noted is that UN Resolutions are really meaningless. United States did not go to war with Iraq over UN Resolutions.
United States went to war with Iraq to topple the Hussein regime. This is clear because of the efforts previously put in place to attempt to have Hussein removed from power... People can throw around whatever excuses they want about WMD, UN Resolutions, shooting at planes, Hussein being a war criminal himself whatever they want. It all came down to what America wanted to have done and that was the Hussein regime toppled. You can go back in time to see the Hussein/America relationship if you'd like to see why they would want this.
Is this a legitimate reason to go to war?
In my opinion: Sure... I feel that if a country feels it necessary to go to war then it goes to war. Who cares about what the rest of the world feels about a situation? If they don't like it then they can fight back. This is how things have been done and it's how things will continue to be done. No one will fight back against the USA so what's the point of pointless complaining.

The quote that states that war crimes are what the victor declares them as is too true, even in this situation.

Anyways for those crying: Hussein was not complying with UN Resolutions then what about the USA? What about the resolutions they ignore and choose not to follow? Should we invade America and bomb Washington?

 

[BobG]

That's all nice, bob - I think most people agree that the US went against the will of the UN and in hindsight only 1 out of 3 justifications had any real validity - but I think what people are interested in for the purpose of this thread is if the invasion of Iraq was a crime. You haven't explicitly stated one way or another if your intention with all of that was to support the argument that it was a crime. Was that your point? If not, do you think there is any validity to the belief that the invasion itself was a crime?

Actually, I think Ivan was interested in whether the invasion of Iraq was a crime, not the original post (although I don't know enough about UK law to know whether Blair committed any criminal offenses in the UK).

There was no justification for the invasion using UN resolutions (unless the US is literally the sole deciding authority for the UN), nor did the US provide any other acceptable justification. That isn't quite the same as committing an international crime as I would expect the burden to be on the accuser to prove (or at least accuse) that the US/UK committed a crime. Considering the UN acknowledged the US and UK as occupiers of Iraq in UN Resolution 1483 (5/22/2003), the UN didn't seem to consider the invasion worth pusuing as a crime.

Realistically, that's just acknowledging that permanent members of the UN Security Council can never commit international crimes.

IMO, I do not think the UN would authorize the use of force in the face of a truly imminent threat. It is a corrupt organization. For example, when Iran gets a nuke, I doubt the UN will seek to do much of anything.

How can you say that and then list 17 UN resolutions, including UN Resolution 678 which authorized the invasion in Gulf War I?

By the way, your description of UN Resolution 1441 has a typo. The resolution states that the UN has threatened serious consequences in the past; they will convene immediately to consider the situation in the event of continued violations in the future. Paragraphs 12 & 13:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

 

[Alfi]

I read good arguments on both sides. Because of that, I would side with, the war was unwarranted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If hundreds of thousands of peoples lives are on the line, then the proof for the reasons for WAR, be they wmd's or imminent threat, should be uncontroversial.

 

[cristo]

Anyways, I'm kind of iffy on if any government body actually believed that they had WMD. Maybe they thought it was a possibility but I highly doubt they actually thought that they seriously had WMD. Yes the war was purely political... then again, that's pretty much the entire purpose of war.

How are you qualified to comment on whether or not members of governments "believed" in the WMD claim? The way I heard it was that MI6 (or the JIC) presented "the 45 minute claim" to the prime minister, who took it as serious. I do not see that the prime minister would lie to the public, and completely make up such an intelligence source, so it seems that the source was inaccurate. Conjecture as to whether or not MPs "believed" this source is impossible without having read the entire document. Regardless, your security services are there for a reason, and you can't simply ignore what they're telling you, or stating that you know better.

 

[Sorry!]

How are you qualified to comment on whether or not members of governments "believed" in the WMD claim? The way I heard it was that MI6 (or the JIC) presented "the 45 minute claim" to the prime minister, who took it as serious. I do not see that the prime minister would lie to the public, and completely make up such an intelligence source, so it seems that the source was inaccurate. Conjecture as to whether or not MPs "believed" this source is impossible without having read the entire document. Regardless, your security services are there for a reason, and you can't simply ignore what they're telling you, or stating that you know better.

First of all I said that I'm iffy on if they actually believed that I had high doubts that they had concrete evidence suggesting beyond any doubt that Iraq had WMD. Why do I say this?

SENATE On Postwar Intelligence:

[..]this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.

(bolding mine)

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

Hans Blix Report to the UN:

Turning to biological and chemical weapons, Mr. Blix said there was a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of those arms, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. As part of that effort, a disposal site was being now re-excavated, unearthing bombs and fragments, which could allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.

(bolding mine)

Mr. Blix emphasized that no evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction being moved around by truck, of mobile production units for biological weapons or of underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage

(bolding mine)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect


Here is an article on Americas "Eye-Witness" of WMD production:

And, it turned out, the CIA not only never spoke with him, it never even saw transcripts of the German interviews, only the Germans' analysis of the interviews.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/10/iraq.curveball/index.html

As for British Intelligence look into the 'Butler Review'...
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20060105191702/http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/report.pdf
(It's quite a large document 216 pages so I wouldn't expect you to go through it all)

[sarcasm]There are plenty more reports of 'intelligence' showing that Iraq had WMDs [/sarcasm]

If you'd like them just let me know.

The main reason for the invasion of Iraq came from the Blix report to the UN, America didn't like the pace that was occurring and the UN did not agree with using force to get the program underway. In MY opinion it looks more like America actually just wanted an excuse to go in and topple Hussein.

They have a clear motive (as outlined from when Clinton was president and then it was brought to the table as an 'urgent' issue when Bush took power.) All to do with only toppling the regime, not WMD. Obviously the UN would not agree to using force to accelerate the programs occurring in Iraq.

 

[Nebula815]

How can you say that and then list 17 UN resolutions, including UN Resolution 678 which authorized the invasion in Gulf War I?

You have a point there, I could be wrong. But the UN does not strike me much as a useful organization at all. Just my opinion.

 

[cristo]

First of all I said that I'm iffy on if they actually believed that I had high doubts that they had concrete evidence suggesting beyond any doubt that Iraq had WMD.

You know, you should really start punctuating your sentences if you continue writing in this ambiguous manner.

Anyway, you seem to focus on the evidence put to governments by the weapons inspectors, but my point was that intelligence stated otherwise. Just because UN weapons detectors did not find weapons does not mean that the said weapons did not exist.

Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate really, since this point (whether or not the intelligence existed in the first place) is utterly impossible to prove -- the evidence will likely be locked deep in filing cabinets somewhere. But, to say that intelligence was fabricated solely to go to war, is a pretty wild accusation. Oh, and as for your CNN eye witness [sic], you shouldn't believe everything you read in the media!

 

[Sorry!]

You know, you should really start punctuating your sentences if you continue writing in this ambiguous manner.

I was typing it out quickly because I wanted to just post all those sources.

Anyway, you seem to focus on the evidence put to governments by the weapons inspectors, but my point was that intelligence stated otherwise. Just because UN weapons detectors did not find weapons does not mean that the said weapons did not exist.

Wrong one piece of intelligence I posted was about Hans. I guess you could say that's me focusing mostly on the UN weapons inspectors... sure.

Now, I'm just playing devil's advocate really, since this point (whether or not the intelligence existed in the first place) is utterly impossible to prove -- the evidence will likely be locked deep in filing cabinets somewhere.

Wrong, I posted the Butler Review Report. There is also a report from America's commitee but apparently the website is no longer operating. I'll look for it too. Britains report is more about the intelligence available to Britain. America's report include government policy made on the intelligence.

But, to say that intelligence was fabricated solely to go to war, is a pretty wild accusation.

If you read the Senate commitee report on the Postwar intelligence they say just that. That "intelligence [was presented by government] as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent"

Oh, and as for your CNN eye witness [sic], you shouldn't believe everything you read in the media

You never heard of 'Curveball?' This isn't CNNs 'eye-witness' this is one of AMERICAs eye-witnesses used to conclude Iraq had WMD. America never even interviewed this guy or even read through the transcripts of his interview. Funny... Again if you do not believe me then you could always go and lookup the reports from the American commitees which do speak about these 'eye-witnesses' or go to UN speaches made about these 'eye-witnesses'.

 

[cristo]

Wrong one piece of intelligence I posted was about Hans. I guess you could say that's me focusing mostly on the UN weapons inspectors... sure.

Chill out with the unnecessary sarcasm! Regardless, my point still stands.

Wrong, I posted the Butler Review Report.

I'm still not certain that all intelligence that was available will go into a report by a commons committee, but then that's just my opinion. Still, I don't recall the Butler report saying that the 45 minute claim (for example) was entirely fabricated.

If you read the Senate commitee report on the Postwar intelligence they say just that. That "intelligence [was presented by government] as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent"

Well, fortunately, I wasn't talking about the US intelligence.

You never heard of 'Curveball?' This isn't CNNs 'eye-witness' this is one of AMERICAs eye-witnesses used to conclude Iraq had WMD.

I don't doubt that such an "eye-witness" existed, but whether the guy interviewed in that article is the same eye-witness is, at least to me, questionable.

 

[yuiop]

Who cares whether or not they had WMDs or not? The fact that Iraq was a hostile country that would not allow weapons inspectors into freely check if they WMDs was enough justification in itself, as far as I am concerned.

 

[turbo]

Who cares whether or not they had WMDs or not? The fact that Iraq was a hostile country that would not allow weapons inspectors into freely check if they WMDs was enough justification in itself, as far as I am concerned.

Who gets to decide which country is "hostile" and won't allow inspectors to freely access all their facilities? Would you allow ANY country to assail the US as "hostile" and to attack us if we didn't let them inspect our weapons programs? I think not.

Lets inject some common sense and some respect for national sovereignty into this thread, lest it prove less productive than the "relationships" pap.

 

[yuiop]

Who gets to decide which country is "hostile" and won't allow inspectors to freely access all their facilities? Would you allow ANY country to assail the US as "hostile" and to attack us if we didn't let them inspect our weapons programs? I think not.

Lets inject some common sense and some respect for national sovereignty into this thread, lest it prove less productive than the "relationships" pap.

In 1991 Iraq under the leadership of Saddam invaded Kuwait without provocation. I think that classifies Iraq as "hostile" and in 2003 Iraq was still under the leadership of Saddam, so nothing much had changed.
As for who gets to decide, I think the expression "might is right" comes to mind and whether you like it or not it is a fact of life. When we question the legitimacy or legality of the Iraq war, we immediately imply that there is such a thing as a world policeforce or court that gets to decide these things. I seem to recall that it was the United Nations that decided to send in the weapons inspectors, so I guess it is the UN that gets to decide. Let's follow your line of reasoning. We only send weapons inspectors into countries that are agreable to being inspected. That leaves only the genuinely aggressive countries with something to hide that do not get inspected. Maybe the UN should never have decided to send weapons inspectors in, but once they made that decision, they have to enforce it or the whole exercise becomes pointless. The gist of this thread is whether or not Iraq had WMDs. Do you not see the hypocracy right there. Many countries including the UK, USA and Israel have WMDs. What gives them the right to say any other country should not also have WMDs? If we decide that all countries do not have an automatic right to have WMDs, then we have to enforce that (and that includes enforcing inspection for WMDs) or we just give up and let anyone have any weapons they like and wait for them to start invading before responding. Is that your position?

 

[Sorry!]

In 1991 Iraq under the leadership of Saddam invaded Kuwait without provocation. I think that classifies Iraq as "hostile" and in 2003 Iraq was still under the leadership of Saddam, so nothing much had changed.
As for who gets to decide, I think the expression "might is right" comes to mind and whether you like it or not it is a fact of life. When we question the legitimacy or legality of the Iraq war, we immediately imply that there is such a thing as a world policeforce or court that gets to decide these things. I seem to recall that it was the United Nations that decided to send in the weapons inspectors, so I guess it is the UN that gets to decide. Let's follow your line of reasoning. We only send weapons inspectors into countries that are agreable to being inspected. That leaves only the genuinely aggressive countries with something to hide that do not get inspected. Maybe the UN should never have decided to send weapons inspectors in, but once they made that decision, they have to enforce it or the whole exercise becomes pointless. The gist of this thread is whether or not Iraq had WMDs. Do you not see the hypocracy right there. Many countries including the UK, USA and Israel have WMDs. What gives them the right to say any other country should not also have WMDs? If we decide that all countries do not have an automatic right to have WMDs, then we have to enforce that (and that includes enforcing inspection for WMDs) or we just give up and let anyone have any weapons they like and wait for them to start invading before responding. Is that your position?

First of all weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were doing their jobs. WMD were destroyed and Iraq was in the process of giving evidence of such. This was all reported to the UN yet it was happening and quite a slow pace. You are right there is no 'world policeforce' I wonder why America feels inclined to pretend it's that police force however by invading this country. Yes it is hypocrisy to not allow these other countries to build WMD, but we should still try to sway them from doing it. A reason that they were persuasive about Iraq to the public was by saying they were going to sell them to terrorist organization which would in turn most probably be used against the American people.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder why America feels inclined [...] by invading this country.

Numerous justifications given above
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2493298&postcount=46

 

[Sorry!]

Numerous justifications given above
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2493298&postcount=46

The only 'major' problem I saw from any of those posts was the fact that Iraq had been following UN Resolutions too slowly. My comment you quoted was specifically towards a 'world police force'. It wasn't a 'why did America attack' but a 'why does America feel the need to police the world' What makes it feel that that should be it's job? The only answer I can think of has to do with it's foreign policy on Iraq. Which has been outlined.

Anyway if you think that those reasons were legitimate then I suggest you read through some of the reports I posted earlier...

 

[yuiop]

First of all weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were doing their jobs...

I do not think that is entirely true. Iraq officials were hindering the weapons inspectors by limiting where they could go and delaying them long enough to move equipment before the inspectors arrived.

Imagine police had reason to believe you were a terrorist and came to your home to check for weapons and explosives and you said sure, you can look in those rooms but not in that room and you will have to come back next week to look in this other room, (after I have cleared it out). Do you think the police will (a) go away peacefully respecting your conditions or (b) get a SWAT team in and break down the doors?

 

[Sorry!]

I do not think that is entirely true. Iraq officials were hindering the weapons inspectors by limiting where they could go and delaying them long enough to move equipment before the inspectors arrived.

Imagine police had reason to believe you were a terrorist and came to your home to check for weapons and explosives and you said sure, you can look in those rooms but not in that room and you will have to come back next week to look in this other room, (after I have cleared it out). Do you think the police will (a) go away peacefully respecting your conditions or (b) get a SWAT team in and break down the doors?

The inspectors did not go away the continued their job, UN Sanctions continued, and the disarment Resolutions were being completed. Do your research prior to talking please. If they were 'moving equipment' then
a. how didn't the inspectors finally catch on.
and
b. where is this 'equipment' (whatever that means anyways) located now.
and
c. why has the majority of postwar intelligence regarding WMD been dismissed from both America AND Britain? If Iraq was infact doing what you claim then America was correct and so was their 'eye-witness' named 'curveball'.

 

[BobG]

First of all weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were doing their jobs. WMD were destroyed and Iraq was in the process of giving evidence of such. This was all reported to the UN yet it was happening and quite a slow pace. You are right there is no 'world policeforce' I wonder why America feels inclined to pretend it's that police force however by invading this country. Yes it is hypocrisy to not allow these other countries to build WMD, but we should still try to sway them from doing it. A reason that they were persuasive about Iraq to the public was by saying they were going to sell them to terrorist organization which would in turn most probably be used against the American people.

Numerous justifications given above
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2493298&postcount=46

Your defense for the US acting as the world's police force (instead of the UN) is UN Resolutions?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Edit: Actually, I probably shouldn't assume anything, since I have no idea what you're getting at. You might be suggesting that the US is the world's policeman, but you didn't provide a reason why we should be.

 

[mheslep]

Your defense for the US acting as the world's police force (instead of the UN) is UN Resolutions?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Edit: Actually, I probably shouldn't assume anything, since I have no idea what you're getting at. You might be suggesting that the US is the world's policeman, but you didn't provide a reason why we should be.

I omitted 'worlds police force', that's hyperbole. The US is involved in hostile military actions in Afghanistan along with many other countries, and to a lesser and declining degree in Iraq. The couple pages of UN resolutions on Iraq are the legal justifications for Iraq alone. Iraq/Afghanistan <> The World.

 

[BobG]

I omitted 'worlds police force', that's hyperbole. The US is involved in hostile military actions in Afghanistan along with many other countries, and to a lesser and declining degree in Iraq. The couple pages of UN resolutions on Iraq are the legal justifications for Iraq alone. Iraq/Afghanistan <> The World.

Yet, when the US presented a draft resolution to the UN in March 2003, the UN rejected it, saying invasion wasn't the proper response to Iraq's violations.

Iraq had a long history of violations and the UN had a long history of punishing Iraqi violations. The punishments usually consisted of delaying the transition to the next phase of the Food for Oil program, or some other minor punishment. Likewise, the consequences for non-compliance spelled out in UN Resolution 1441 consisted of convening and creating a new resolution to deal with Iraq's non-compliance. Considering that Iraq's violations consisted of foot dragging, obstruction, and general malingering when it came to cooperation, one could assume the UN would have imposed an additional minor punishment.

After all, the possible range of violations: open defiance and full scale operation of a chemical weapons program ranging all the way to foot dragging and malingering.

Possible ranges of punishments: full scale invasion ranging all the way to prolonged sanctions and delaying benefits of reduced sanctions.

With the US/UK calling for invasion and the rest of the Security Council calling for a less severe punishment; the result was no resolution at all.

I just don't see how that list provides a legal or moral justification for an invasion. To say it provides a legal justification requires some major cherry picking. You have to ignore UN responses that didn't support the US, plus ignore any punishment (albeit weak) the UN did impose on Iraq for violations. To say it provides a moral justification is to say that any violation deserves the most serious punishment that could be imposed. That didn't impress much of the world when Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling back in '90 and it didn't impress much of the world when the US accused Iraq of violating UN Resolutions in 2003.

A more intellectually honest argument is that the long list of resolutions and minor punishments proved the UN would never give the US what we wanted, so why bother with them? But that requires justifications completely independent of UN Resolutions. It would also more accurately reflect the Bush Administration's opinion about the UN, as evidenced by appointing John Bolton as UN Ambassador.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." ... "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

 

[mheslep]

[...]
I just don't see how that list provides a legal or moral justification for an invasion. To say it provides a legal justification requires some major cherry picking. You have to ignore UN responses that didn't support the US, plus ignore any punishment (albeit weak) the UN did impose on Iraq for violations.

This blends two very different things: legal/moral justification for the war, and international agreement that war is the proper action to take. The cease fire violations and corresponding UN resolutions by themselves legally justified military action, as I understand it, no cherry picking required. Those violations put Iraq in a different category from other bad actors. Many of the other UN resolutions, pass or fail, were about obtaining further international consensus as to what to about Iraq. That's a good thing if it can be done, maybe the prudent thing, but it is not necessary to justify military action.

 

[Sorry!]

This blends two very different things: legal/moral justification for the war, and international agreement that war is the proper action to take. The cease fire violations and corresponding UN resolutions by themselves legally justified military action, as I understand it, no cherry picking required. Those violations put Iraq in a different category from other bad actors. Many of the other UN resolutions, pass or fail, were about obtaining further international consensus as to what to about Iraq. That's a good thing if it can be done, maybe the prudent thing, but it is not necessary to justify military action.

You are using UN Resolutions which are basically just international agreements to justify the legality of invading Iraq anyways... In my opinion none of those UN Resolutions matter to America neither did what the UN had to say... well maybe they would have cared if the UN agreed to take military action against Iraq.

Anyways didn't America invade Iraq without the proper voting procedures? It needed 9 votes right? It only had 4 known votes at the time. America breaking UN regulations? Should I call up the coalition forces to bomb Washington and kill thousands of American citizens.
I'm pretty sure even Kofi Annan himself stated that the invasion by UN charter was illegal... Is this just a one way street? We must enforce resolutions on Iraq through military action but not uphold UN views when it is against America?

If people just admit that America solely invaded Iraq to topple the Hussein regime, and understand that the evidence supporting WMD was not there then I'll be completely understanding and agree. However constant excuse making for the justification of the invasion is rediculous. None of them really 'stand up'. Even Bush admitted that the postwar intelligence and policy surrounding it on Iraq was the biggest downfall of his time as president.

All this being said it doesn't mean that I don't think America going to war against Iraq was bad, just the excuses made for it are. I believe that a country can go to war with any country it pleases. If America wanted to attempt to take over Cuba, go for it. That's the entire purpose of war... it's a political tool to enforce your will onto other states. America uses WAR perfectly IMO. However when the other countries start fighting back because you constantly bully them for no reason do not cry for help.

 

[Nebula815]

You are right there is no 'world policeforce' I wonder why America feels inclined to pretend it's that police force however by invading this country.

I would disagree on this bit about there not being any "world police force." There is no "official" world police force perhaps that is given such a name, but I would not want to see the state of the world if the United States was not present.

Yes it is hypocrisy to not allow these other countries to build WMD, but we should still try to sway them from doing it. A reason that they were persuasive about Iraq to the public was by saying they were going to sell them to terrorist organization which would in turn most probably be used against the American people.

Why should we allow ruthless dictatorships that oppress human rights and could cause serious harm to us the right to develop WMD?

That's like saying that if law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, then we should also allow the rapists, murderers, and so forth to own guns.

The only nations that you allow to develop WMD (that is, provided you can do anything about it) are the ones that are civilized and do not oppress human rights, and ruthlessly oppress their people, and could also be a threat to the Western world.

Nations like Iran, that may well be hellbent on nuking Israel and trying to create a second Holocaust, or North Korea, which for sixty years has been building up for the re-unification with South Korea and wants nukes as a deterrant so that when it decides firebomb the daylights out of South Korea and effectively slaughters all the American soldiers stationed there, along with killing a lot of South Koreans by bombing Seoul to smithereens, and the only thing the United States can do is nuke them back to do anything about it (as conventional bombing likely won't work in such an instance, plus NK is a wholly different animal from a nation like Iraq to invade or bomb), the NKs can say, "You bomb us, and we're launching at one of your major cities" (and if the NKs get a nuke that they can launch intercontinentally, this day will come, as this is what NK has been preparing for, for decades, unless they are stopped somehow), you do not allow such nations to develop WMDs out of some notion of "fairness."

That's like if the Nazis were to re-emergence to power in Germany at some future point, you wouldn't allow them to develop WMDs.

My comment you quoted was specifically towards a 'world police force'. It wasn't a 'why did America attack' but a 'why does America feel the need to police the world' What makes it feel that that should be it's job?

America only feels it needs to "police" the world in the sense that:

1) It is necessary for the security of the Western world, and

2) There is no one else on the planet that can, or will, do it. You think the EU could front a 200,000 man force, move it halfway around the world, and then sustain continued operations for year after year?

Europe (EU), for one, couldn't do this, as they lack the ability. Most of the Euro nations put less than 2% of the NATO-mandated minimum of 2% of GDP into their militaries, and what they do spend is usually on the salaries and benefits of the soldiers, as opposed to on training and equipment.

Most also do not have the ability to ramp up their defense spending. They have invested too much of their national economies into their social welfare states (which themselves are expensive enough as it is, and deeply in debt for different nations), plus their peoples, having been cocooned and protected for so many years by the United States and the UK, do not have the will or spirit for any such actions. There have been attempts to create European Rapid-Reaction Forces, but they have all went nowhere.

The EU peoples will not sacrifice their entitlement social welfare states in order to pour more funding into defense (especially when they have a big nation like the U.S. that handle the defense for them).

As it stands, the only other nation aside from the United States that still has a warrior culture and the ability to actually project force, is the United Kingdom, and even for them, right now, they'd have a hard time pulling off something like the Falklands again.

Sure, multiple nations aid in the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are the loyal sidekicks to the U.S. None of them could really go at such an effort by themselves.

The only nation with the capability to defend the Western world, whether that be standing up to the Soviet Union to stop them from taking over all of Europe, or sending large numbers of troops into a place like Afghanistan to prevent the area from becoming the equivalent to terrorists of what a raw steak sitting at room temperature is to E. Coli, and also to prevent Pakistan from possibly falling to radical Islamists (which would be an utter catastrophe), to invading a nation like Iraq if the need should ever arise, is the United States.

The U.S. tends to be damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If the U.S. was to truly become isolationist and stop caring about the rest of the world's affairs and possible dangers, the EU would be crapping bricks. On the other hand, when the U.S. decides to act to handle such issues around the world, then it gets accused of imperialism, sticking its nose where it shouldn't, and so forth.

The U.S., as President Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, has played a key role in underwriting global security for the past sixty years.

 

[Nebula815]

I believe that a country can go to war with any country it pleases.

Why?

If America wanted to attempt to take over Cuba, go for it. That's the entire purpose of war... it's a political tool to enforce your will onto other states.

No it isn't. That is one purpose of war. War is also sometimes just a necessary evil to protect the free world.

America uses WAR perfectly IMO. However when the other countries start fighting back because you constantly bully them for no reason do not cry for help.

What nations does America constantly "bully?"