OCCOM BILL wrote:
We'll never know if "the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens" would have opposed a UN instigated regime change in Iraq. I don't think they would have.
Aha, I was reading a different meaning and I'm inclined to agree with you.
LOL Craven... I'm new to this debating stuff... Is that what you would call a Strawman?
Yes. Based on my initial misunderstanding of your point.
Now here's the kicker. The US opposes the only meachanism that has ever been proposed to deal with such a man as Saddam.
The truth is, that the world lacks a entity to deal with domestic abuse of power unless it is an ongoing humanitarian crisis.
At the times when Saddam was actively creating a human rights crisis the US supported him.
So once he calmed down a bit it's hard to make a case for intervention, absent entities and mechanisms to do so.
The ICC was formed to try war crimes when the host nation is unwilling or unable to do so.
But the US so fears the leveling of power that is a judicial system that we vehemently oppose it. That would have been the perfect place to seek grounds for regime change under humanitarian reasons.
So when you fault the UN, make sure to fault the big guys like Russia and the US, who make sure to deny the UN enough power.
A judicial system is an equalizer. Those who are in power do not seek a level playing field.
So the US wants to both deny a judicial entity to deal with the types like Saddam AND act as the cop.
IF you want the end of such madmen, how about supporting the ICC and helping to make it an entity that addresses such situations?