Reply #111: I'm going to start in the immediate aftermath of ground operations in Iraq

[hellhathnofury]

I think we would have had justification to topple Saddam under UN auspices when he commenced suppression in the Shia south and the Kurd north. There were blatant human rights violations. At this time we would have had all the ground forces we needed in place to overthrow Saddam and establish a parliamentary system in Iraq. We would have had a UN war tribunal. As much as I would have liked to see Bush I in jail for giving Saddam weapons I wouldn't have demanded it because it would not have been in the best interests of the US and the Iraqi people.

If we're going to go to war against a despot we better finish the job the first time around. What I have trouble understanding is how we would have justified leaving in a place a leader who'd launched 2 major war's of agressions against his neighbors.

Now since this didn't happen, obviously. I'll fastforward until after the 1998 bombing campaign.

I think containment was the appropriate concept. The problem with the sanctions were that they were poorly run and did not put any pressure on Saddam while punishing the average Iraqi(the extent is debateable). Saddam was doing 1-2 billion dollars in illegal oil smuggling. There were hardly any reprecussions for buying Iraqi oil. I've heard that there was also summgling into Turkey and Jordan. This needed to be stopped. If we had cut his funding off we could have probably forced some major changes in Iraq such as intrusive inspections, demilitarization, the possible turnover of major war criminals and quite possibly governmental reforms.

I'm thoroughly opposed to this venture on the grounds that it was poorly executed, risky, foolish and unnecessery.

I do believe that when the US has a compelling interest in the affairs of other nations we are justified in acting (appropriately).