If you can read French (sorry, Freedom), I think this article from Le Monde is a good and simple analysing summary of "why".
I keep hearing people say that 45 countries support the US while only 6 oppose the war. This shows some high level of indoctrination, likely with some major media manipulating information. Le Monde published a map of the world with countries pro and countries against (which is what I was looking for online but apparently it is only in print), and without couting it's quite clear that part of Europe + Russia + China + the entirety of Africa (minus Ethiopia (pro), Rwanda (neutral), and Somalia (no official government)) + India + most of the Americas (minus the USA, Bolivia, and one or two small countries) adds up to much more than 6. But then CNN sees shuttles travelling at multiples of the speed of light and has experts smart enough to know that Ossama is "either dead or alive" so I wouldn't be surprised if simple arithmetics were well beyond them.
Re:Huh
darobin on 2003-03-20T16:27:04
Going to Babelfish doesn't give quite as good a summary as the French one, but I'll try to address your points nevertheless
:) Point one is that journalist isn't specifically against the war. In fact, he clearly states supporting a number of the reasons. So your arguments from §1 and §3 don't quite hold I believe. The point of having an analysis is precisely because what is publicly stated by the people that are pro-war isn't necessarily the real motivation. For instance the branch of the Republicans that call themselves neo-imperialists don't hold the same discourse as GWB does, or at least they do it far more clearly. Stated reasons are only so good. Why did so many countries support intervention in Kosovo and oppose it in Iraq?
By decided to attack he is referring to the moment when the decision was made to actually do it. The international context having all of a sudden become far more potentially supportive. I think Bush waited too long in fact, he'd have had more support a year earlier.
As for there being only six nations, I keep having it thrown to my face. I guess they all watched the same interview or something.
Re:Huh
pudge on 2003-03-20T16:43:54
When the people who are behind this war have been saying the same thing for 7 years, and have been consistent, and all their actions match up with what they have been saying for those years, it's pretty reasonable to take them at their word. That's all I am saying.
I agree the message has been muddled, but underneath all the talk about terrorism and 9/11 and everything else, the case for removing Hussein because he is a threat -- to Israel, Saudi Arabia, oil, Kuwait, Kurds -- has always been there, has always been the single consistent theme. And note also that Bush has been consistent in saying that if Iraq disarms itself -- ceases to be a threat -- then we would not insist on Hussein's removal, we would not attack. This was made clear in August, and has been repeated over and again. There is no reason to doubt it from anything they have said or done.
In addition, the article completely (apparently:-) ignores the fact that 1441 calls for immediate and full compliance, or face serious consequences, and everyone -- including France's government, including inspectors -- agrees that Iraq has not been fully compliant, let alone immediately so. A lack of full compliance is the same as no compliance at all, according to 1441. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. To appeal to the inspectors saying they want more time to try to achieve full compliance is to admit that Iraq has failed 1441, something every nation on the Security Council (at the time) voted in favor of.
As to Bush: no, he said before 9/11 that he wanted Saddam gone, implying he would be the one to do it. It sounded very much like a decision to me. If anything, I think 9/11 postponed an attack on Iraq.
Re:Huh
darobin on 2003-03-20T16:59:27
Well, amid the muddlement is the fact that Israel doesn't consider Iraq a threat anymore, and that a threat to Saudi Arabia and to Kuwait sounds like an ally to me... As for oil, I don't see the threat, the cost of war could finance alternative energies
;) The Kurds (and the Iraqi population) are a more complex problem, which calls for a Kosovo-style intervention (without the bombings of Chinese embassies or drops of fragmentation bombs on civilians, if avoidable). It would seem however that the only person they trust less than Saddam is Bush, which makes intervening complex.
One major point in the bitter discussions that led to 1441 was that recourse to force in case of incomplete or slow compliance could IN NO CASE be automatic. When the US and the UK yielded to that position, France immediately agreed to (most of) the rest of the terms. A lack of compliance does thus not entitle the coalition to attack, they are doing so against international law, as indicated by the UNO's legal commission. The anti-wars wanted to keep disarming, something which the inspectors said was very much possible. Iraq was constantly yielding, if unhappily (which is hardly surprising), and it could have kept going on like that.
As for the date of the exact decision, we don't have time to research precise indicators and expose them here, and so are bordering on kremlinology
:) Re:Huh
pudge on 2003-03-20T17:25:13
amid the muddlement is the fact that Israel doesn't consider Iraq a threat anymore
That's a bit disingenuous. They didn't consider Iraq a threat *currently* because Iraq was being contained, and only for that reason. And we know that containment was a failure in Iraq, because without full cooperation with the UN, Iraq *did* continue to make NBC weapons, without our knowledge, without inspectors finding anything, until defectors told us where to look.
One major point in the bitter discussions that led to 1441 was that recourse to force in case of incomplete or slow compliance could IN NO CASE be automatic.
The US never said it was. And in the end, it wasn't. That we ended up resorting to force does not point to a case for automaticity.
A lack of compliance does thus not entitle the coalition to attack, they are doing so against international law, as indicated by the UNO's legal commission.
Yes, a lack of compliance does not entitle the coalition to attack. But nothing in 1441 prohibited it, either. The US has held since November that 1441 means that if Iraq does not comply, we go back to the Security Council, and if the Security Council does not act, then we reserve the right to act without it.
And some people say it is illegal, but there is very little basis for that opinion, in a meaningful sense. If this war is illegal, then every military action but two -- Korea and the first Gulf War -- since the inception of the UN is illegal, because those are the only ones authorized by the UN. Kosovo was illegal, Somalia was illegal, Suez was illegal. Speaking in terms of "legality" in this sense is specious, at best.
Iraq was constantly yielding, if unhappily (which is hardly surprising), and it could have kept going on like that.
Yes, it could have. Forever. And we know that 1441 says this is not acceptable. And we know that Iraq has a policy of creating and keeping these weapons under such conditions, and that it has worked for them in the past, and that nothing has significantly changed to prevent them from continuing in that manner. Keeping going on like that is not acceptable based on 1441, let alone past experience.
As for the date of the exact decision, we don't have time to research precise indicators and expose them here, and so are bordering on kremlinology:)
I am just saying Bush is on record saying he wanted to get rid of Hussein, long before 9/11, implying he was going to do it himself. There is no reason to think he did not make the decision until after 9/11, based on this evidence, let alone to say he "undoubtedly" did so.
