Intervene to protect Iraq

[Dan Stack]

I'm not sure how to phrase this question. I don't mean it as silly, but I do mean it as a difficult one....

A lot of people - and governments - think that it would be wrong, if not outright evil, to use the word, for the United States and United Kingdom to attack Iraq.

For purposes of debate, if that is indeed the case, would it not be ethical in the event of war to come to the defense of the Iraqis against the UK and US forces?

[Dan Stack]

A quick follow-up - I'm not saying such action would need to mean attacking US aircraft carriers, I'm referring to trade embargos, UN resolutions, etc. Or military action for that matter, if one feels it appropriate.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Dan Stack]

Well, I would assume the parties most opposed would be those involved in such action - i.e. France, China, Germany, Russia. Maybe Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt as well.

[C5]

Okay, you had me worried for a while. I thought you asked who'd side with Iraq during the conflict.

I don't think any Western country would be interested in militarily protect Iraq (no, not even we pestering French - I mean, apart for the French surrendering jokes, he's a dictator after all).

Well, technically, if no weapon is found in Iraq, and that the US and UK still launch their attack, then they will be guilty of assaulting another country with no reason (ok... no UN-validated reason, there are plenty of reasons, some of them I agree with). So a UN resolution would be in order, maybe even leading to some embargos.

Of course, this couldn't happen thanks to the USA veto.

[Silverthorne]

Theoretically they could. I would also note that most of the countries in the world, I believe are being supported by the US.. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Ramage]

An interesting question with no straight answer...

Potentially, I could see a case being made for such intervention, especially in Muslim countries (including, and I say this nervously, in Turkey and Pakistan). At least potentially another nation could see enough of a threat in such an attack by the U.S. and Great Britain to feel justified; most nations are currently asking that an attack on Iraq only take place under U.N. auspices. So given the right (or wrong, depending on how you read such matters) combination of circumstances and the feeling of the populace of a given nation, yes, I could see possible intervention in favour of Iraq.

More importantly, I think we would need to look beyond nations joining in such a war -- al Qaida is not a nation, but a movement. I think it is very likely that such a movement would get involved, if for no other reason than to advance its own cause and underline its hatred of the U.S. & U.K. Such a movement could, and likely would, "extend" the battlefield by attempting to cause havoc in both Britain and America.

As to whether it is ethical, that is another kettle of fish. The standards are immediately open -- "International Law" is a truly hazy concept, especially as so few nations (including the U.S.) can agree on its parameters. I could point out differing passages in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran that would both justify and not justify such a war.

If a person (or even a nation) has decided on a course of action, it is quite possible to justify it, at least for internal consumption.

Pax.

[Silverthorne]

More importantly, I think we would need to look beyond nations joining in such a war -- al Qaida is not a nation, but a movement.

Possibly a bowel.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
A quick follow-up - I'm not saying such action would need to mean attacking US aircraft carriers, I'm referring to trade embargos, UN resolutions, etc. Or military action for that matter, if one feels it appropriate.

If the US attack Iraq inn opposite of an UN resolution they would be indeed be 'guilty' of an attack war and thus immidiate steps had to be taken by the Security Council as Iraq is also a member of UN. Thus they had to decide about sanctions and the like. However quite unlikely that the US would not veto that. Although there is still the possibility of a General Assembly decision which would counter that. But as the US 'bribed' most of the poorer countries by threatening to shorten financial support incase of non-American decisions, that would not happen either.
No matter the fact it would be the right step to take.


Compare it to that. A person shoots somebody's daughter. In courtroom this daughter's mother shoots the murderer - a crime. The US will do the same when not sticking to UN resolutions. Just follow that line of imagination. The murderer's mother would kill his murderer and so on - that would soon lead to genocide. That cannot be the right way.

[Cybrludite]

You might want to consider what such opposition would reasult in, especially if the opposition from the gtovernments of France & Germany isn't as principled as they claim. After all, France has some sweetheart deals with Iraq to develop under-used oil fields once sanctions have been lifted, and Germany provided the majority of the equipment used in the pre-'91 WMD programs. There's been a number of scandals over the past ten years with products from both countries being captured in cargos heading there in violation of the sanctions. If there's been any governmental involvement with sanctions violations (say, to help improve post-sanctions trade relations) and evidence turns up after the war, US-mainland Europe relations will be effected. If a bunch of our men die because of chemical attacks that are the result of such cheating...

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
You might want to consider what such opposition would reasult in, especially if the opposition from the gtovernments of France & Germany isn't as principled as they claim. After all, France has some sweetheart deals with Iraq to develop under-used oil fields once sanctions have been lifted, and Germany provided the majority of the equipment used in the pre-'91 WMD programs. There's been a number of scandals over the past ten years with products from both countries being captured in cargos heading there in violation of the sanctions. If there's been any governmental involvement with sanctions violations (say, to help improve post-sanctions trade relations) and evidence turns up after the war, US-mainland Europe relations will be effected. If a bunch of our men die because of chemical attacks that are the result of such cheating...

Actually I cannot remember any scandal of German goods being shipped to Iraq however I agree, that it is no morality issue of our government not to intervene in Iraq, which they claimed it to be before elections.

[calguard66]

Absolutely. First and foremost every person must examine every situation, and act as they feel they must.

Some things they may feel strongly enough to act, others they may let pass by... whether it's a car broken down alongside the road or a nation about to be attacked.

Likewise, one must be willing to live, or not live, with the consequences of their actions... both to themselves and others.

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I'm not sure how to phrase this question. I don't mean it as silly, but I do mean it as a difficult one....

A lot of people - and governments - think that it would be wrong, if not outright evil, to use the word, for the United States and United Kingdom to attack Iraq.

For purposes of debate, if that is indeed the case, would it not be ethical in the event of war to come to the defense of the Iraqis against the UK and US forces?

[Chris Landmark]

If a war occurs in Iraq, and it has UN approval, I doubt anyone will do much, other than the protests of those who feel either a) there is never any justification for war, or b) it's the evil West out to destroy Islam again.

Even if the US goes in unilaterally, I doubt any nation-states will actively take up arms in the conflict: I don't think anyone likes Saddam enough to stick their necks out. There may be individuals (particularly Muslims who see it as yet another attack by the evil United States on the Umma (I hope I spelled that right)) who decide to travel to Iraq and take up arms. I'm sure most Arab nations would make the most of it to direct the disaffection of their citizens at the US and away from their repressive regimes, and they'd likely impose some pretty hefty oil embargoes if nothing else. Whether the UN would impose any sanctions I don't know; I'm not familiar enough with how they work to know how one would get around the US's Security Council veto, if the US decided to excercize it in such a self-serving way, but if they don't at least try to they'll lose serious credibility.

Perhaps some particluarly anti-American folks out there might try to haul the US political and military leadership before the international war crimes tribunal. Wouldn't that be fun?

Here's hoping that it all remains speculation.
-Chris Landmark

[First of Two]

Actually I cannot remember any scandal of German goods being shipped to Iraq however I agree, that it is no morality issue of our government not to intervene in Iraq, which they claimed it to be before elections.

Maybe you simply have an extremely selective memory, that you do not remember that the smuggled kilograms of Uranium seized on their way to Iraq were in a German-labeled container.


Personally? No, none of them will intervene to support Iraq. They're against us, but they're not suicidal.

Frankly? If the rest of the world has to be reduced to ash to make me feel safe, so be it. None of your lives is as important to me as my own. Because I'm me, and you aren't. You come and you go, but I'm always here.

When the lines are drawn, it will be a question of who has a backbone and who doesn't.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... and die.

The Europeans have been fooled over and over again, and they're still falling for it.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by First of Two
Maybe you simply have an extremely selective memory, that you do not remember that the smuggled kilograms of Uranium seized on their way to Iraq were in a German-labeled container.

So they were smuggled and not sent by Germany but some criminals.