Originally posted by jaden101
so genocide isnt against international lawa: it was put forward as 1 of the reasons to oust the regime
b: there were several UN resolutions demanding that Iraq release both its own political prisoners and not forgetting the 10.000 kuwaiti's that to this day still have never been found
c: it is against international law
It is most certainly against international law, but it was not these resolutions that the Coalition pursued with such intensity in the lead up. It was about the WMDs. That was what was in the media. That was what they lectured the Security council on. And it was on the question of WMDs that Iraq, while pigheaded, didn't exactly break the resolution.
the people who disregarded them in the first place we political opposition...making them seem morally bankrupt if they were against stopping a genocidal dictator on the basis that killing hundreds of thousands of his own people wasn't a good enough idea to stop him
Now this goes into politics, and of course such questions lead to others - where did he aquire his chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds? How did he get to power (by opposing Iranian and communist forces the US didn't want in), why didn't anyone actually stop him when he was actually doing these things?
But that isn't the question here, as you yourself pointed out earlier such a cause was not politically popular, and thus was not the one trumpeted. And besides it is bloody (literally) ham fisted. He killed many innocent people during his reign. It is then becomes oxymoron to say it is helping his people when they are suffering similar hardships now - they continue to die, only now it's so much more random. They are still malnourished, the educated are still getting out causing a massive brain drain. We ousted a dictator who had done terrible things in the past and in the process made it almost as dangerous for your average Iraqi.
Now I don't see how the political opposition are to blame here. Bush, Blair etc chose their stance. Chose what would get the people on their side. Their opponents didn't right their speeches. Didn't come up with dodgy intelligence. They did whoever point out that they were wrong when they were in fact proven to be wrong.
the people who inspected the weapons found deduced them to be "lower hazard" so your analogy is completely irrelevant
Your missing the point of it. This is what you and others seem to be implying - that these "lower hazard" chemical weapons are somehow evidence of Iraqi duplicity, their lies and proof of the Coalitions first claims - in essence the hidden forces I refereed to. However in reality there is no evidence that they were still considered a part of the Iraqi arsenal. No evidence that they could have been used. No evidence that the Iraqi military even knew of them at the time - they are few number, poor in quality and degraded - the kind of thing that suggests that they had been forgotten about, lost. And I mean really - if Iraq saw fit to destroy 99% of the arsenal years ago, and cease building new WMDss why on earth keep a few around and lot them rot in some out of the way place. What could possibly be achieved by this?
Maybe another WWII example. Following the routing and subsequent victory over the German military by Allied forces, weapons and munitions continued to turn up over the years from where they had been hidden or let fall during the retreats. Now, 10 years on half a dozen V2 rockets are discovered in a poor state buried out 40 miles from Berlin. Germany of course is not allowed such things, being required to destroy or hand over all weapons at the end of the war.
These rockets were not evidence of the Germans breaking the rules, nor could any of the powers have cried foul, that the Germans still had weapons they weren't allowed. Why? Because they didn't actually have them any more, they just happened to be there. It wasn't a plot, simply the discovery of debris from another time.
I have no reason to stick up for the the Iraqi regime. However I can't sugar coat facts to make them fit a political stance - this is not evidence of the things the Coalition claimed before the war. And they know it, hence the fact they aren't even going around saying "hey, we found those weapons" - because if anything this shows they were wrong - Saddam wasn't stockpiling, wasn't developing.