You might wish to read posts before responding to them. I wrote:
You replied:
The consequences you cite were suffered by the Iraqi State and the Iraqi military, not by Saddam Hussein.
Indeed, this is a world of states. Germany is allied with Italy, not Merkel with Berlusconi. Consequences for evil state actions punish states, while the punishment of actually responsible individuals is a rare cream on the cake. That's the situation.
Again I'd like to point at humility: Those who set maximum goals are destined to fail.
And the international community didn't authorize a punishment of Saddam. Waging war to punish an individual would be a crime in itself.
Oh, and finally; you're wrong again. I didn't mention it, but Saddam suffered a lot. He lost some power, the ability to travel, and he had to fear for his life for years. Why do you think he didn't get killed on day 1 of OIF by cruise missiles? He would have been an easy target and been long since dead if he had lived without serious security-related restrictions post-'91.
The Iraqi people also suffered consequences. Saddam, as I said, suffered no consequences whatsoever: after invading, pillaging, and attempting to annex a neighboring state he was still kicking back in the
Palace du jour, receiving oral pleasure from George Galloway. Is that the message you want to send to the dictators of the world?
That's what the United Nations have to decide, not you, me or the POTUS. The U.S. is legally obliged to respect the Charter of the United Nations, which requires peaceful solutions unless authorized by the U.N..
Besides; much of the "pillaging" was mere propaganda anyway.
That they can personally decide to do any damned thing they please, and the consequences, if any, will be suffered by others? That all you have to do is wait a few years and you'll be right back in play with an open invitation to have another go?
Now you don't really want me to apply this to every nation and every head of government, right? I mean, be careful about what you wish. 
The party that subverted international law in this case was not the US, it was the UN.
Impossible by definition.
By abdicating its responsibility to impose personal consequences on Saddam for his personal decision to invade, pillage, and attempt to annex a neighbour, the UN left a complete vacuum in the space it is meant to fill.
There's no such responsibility. And honestly, all U.S.Americans should wait till the Cold War has been over for at least one generation (or till the country has distanced itself reliably from Cold War disrespectful behaviour patterns) before seriously expecting that such arguments impress foreigners.
Of course nature abhors a vacuum, and in this case it was the US who filled it: but do you blame the US for following the laws of international physics or the UN for leaving the vacuum in the first place?
Your whole concept seems just wrong to me.
I understand that you aim at the "policeman of the world" image, but to me it's more like a "global schoolyard bully" image, so don't expect me to be impressed.
If it is against the law to enforce the law, then there is no law, and where there is no law common sense has to prevail.
There is a law. Article 1.1 of the United Nations Charter.
It clearly forbade OIF. The offender was the U.S., UK, Poland and some other mislead countries.
The U.S. got away with it officially thanks to veto right in UNSC, but I'm quite sure that the unofficial backlash will last for decades and hurt a lot.
Common sense says that dictators who repeatedly attempt to conquer their neighbors need to be removed from power.
Oh, but they deserve to be supported on the first attempt or what? I ask because that was the U.S. policy on Saddam.
By the logic you cite, the second world war should have ended at the borders of Germany and Japan, and after a few years the Fuhrer and the Emperor should have been permitted to rearm and try again.
WW2 pre-dates the United Nations. The U.N. had no opportunity to authorize more ambitious actions.
I do also fail to see any significant similarity between Iraq and German or Japan.
Would you say it's fine to immediately hang a horse thief nowadays because there were no cell phones in 19th century to call for today's police to do their job on the thief?
Fortunately at that time we had a bit less law and a bit more common sense.
Unfortunately, it led to a fiasco.
Now I guess we won't agree anytime soon if that's your idea of a good solution.
The European concept of "International Law" seems to revolve around elegant laws, erudite jurists, and dignified courts, with no police, no penal system, no capacity for enforcement. Not a concept likely to succeed in the real world.
It's not an European concept, it was very much coined by the U.S., it was agreed on by all U.N. member states and it's the obligation side of the coin of international relations for the U.S..
The other side of the coin includes such things like others feeling obliged to respect treaties with your country, to respect the U.N. and to grant your country a veto right in the UNSC.
It's childish to expect such advantages without accepting the obligations that come with them.
It's even mroe childish to try that and to expect no sh** flying into the fan.
If we are going to speak of historical hypocrisies, what shall we say of Germany criticizing the US - or anyone - for aggressive behaviour?
Easy. We're the ones who learned lessons that you didn't need to learn yet.
Besides; Germany was united in 1871 and began on its own exactly one war since (WW2), participated in three international alliance wars together with Brits and others (Boxer uprising, Kosovo, OEF-A), waged one colonial conflict worth to be called war (Herero uprising) and entered one war as ally (WWI).
1+3+1+1=6. Did I miss one? Six wars and forcible interventions in 138 years. Three in 74 years till unconditional surrender.
For comparison: The U.S. by comparison was involved in about three dozen wars/interventions in the same time frame, almost all of them voluntarily.
My country had a talent for getting almost only into really big fights, but it has never been such a serial offender as the U.S. and UK.
Yes, the Bay of Pigs was a stupid move. Does that mean that the US should no longer respond when attacked? For how long? A century? Forever? Would Germany's history of aggression make it "hypocritical" for Germany to defend itself if attacked? Does England's historical involvement in narcotics peddling make it "hypocritical" for England to prohibit the importation of narcotics?
It means that aggression does not necessarily lead to proportional consequences, and there's no moral high ground to be had for the U.S. after waging so many dirty wars for decades.
Besides; the Taliban did not attack the U.S., so it's not adequate to speak of self-defence.
Maybe you remember the Altmark incident; it's usually agreed that the British action against the Altmark in Norway's waters was illegal even by the standards of the time. That's the best historical analogy for the AQ/Taliban case that I can think of in modern history.
We would need to look back to ancient times to find examples of wars fought because a power provided hospitality to offenders. Troy and stuff.
I do therefore conclude that this is a rather recent U.S. (re-)invention. That doesn't look like a strong case to me.
Nevertheless, I did consider raids as acceptable.
I do just think that the total-war-all-enemies-must-die-or-surrender-to-the-last-man attitude is nonsense.
It's hypocritical anyway, as long as you don't invade Pakistan as well. The friendship with Saudi Arabia was barely stained. Now that looks hypocritical as well.
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Bookmarks