Quote:
|
and i can remember about half a dozzen of interviews and pressconferences, in which bush, rumsfeld and the commanders in iraq all said, that the commanders woulg get all the troops and equipment they would ask for, if they asked for it, but they didnt. like this from april, 6th 2004:
|
Still, Bremer said that they never did have enough troops on the ground. And my point was that early on it really wasn't an alternative, sending more troops. Later things have changed, that is true.
Quote:
|
what is illegal about it? there was a war that started in 1991 and now one party to this war has taken territory from the other. what is illegal here?
|
It's a matter of definition, I guess. I consider an invasion without the blessing of the security council as illegitimate. You could of course work around that and call the operation a continuation of the '91 war, because of the resolutions that most likely still were not fullfilled. But that argument will often have to pull in events prior to the Gulf-war, or events in the aftermath of Desert Storm in order to be justified. Other than that it would need to assume that there would still be stockpiles of wmds somewhere, asserted from for instance production potentials. It is stretching things a little too far, imo. For instance the British still seek this kind of legitimacy for the operation, and it was a point of view that more allies might be raised more easily if the war could be considered legitimate in this regard. I pulled in this only to perhaps explain Garner's early decisions to tone down the military role. Something that seemed, at that time, to be in line with the policy from Washington.
Quote:
|
the labour unions were all nazi organizations, remember it was the National Socialist German Workers Party. and germans had experienced 21 years of democracy before WW2. but if you dont like to compare iraq to germany, fine, i merely used it, because it is the first thing that comes to my mind for personal reasons. you can compare iraq to japan instead, they were a monarchy without labour unions.
|
Well, I guess that isolated the labour unions weren't a very good argument. Yet one of the differences between the Iraq war and the second world war was that the fighting stopped afterwards. There were a victor and there were a sense of defeat on the other end. In Iraq there seems to have been too many strange alliances and intents to create this kind of atmosphere, and in addition the US was not immediately there to dictate how things should be. Instead they seemed to believe in that they would be "greeted as liberators" and so on, and apparently refused to see what was needed. And this has created a more difficult situation later. At least, that is what I think. Of course, what really ticks me off is that Bremer can actually admit to this now and still not instantly make a joke of every policy decision washington made. Oh, well.