I wasn't going to rise to NZB's bait but hey what the hell.
The people of Iraq did ask for help, as I recall they tried to overthrow Saddam after being informed that they would get backing from foreign nations, however they got sold out in an attempt to keep Iraq unified. (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/30/iraq.guardianobituaries)
Not to mention subsequent infighting etc.
They had shattered most of his "million-man army" except for its elite Republican Guards, held in reserve to defend the regime against the wrath of the people. And this time their wrath was truly unleashed. The two oppressed majorities, Shias and Kurds, staged their great uprisings. These began spontaneously, when a Shia tank commander, having fled from Kuwait to Basra, positioned his vehicle in front of one of those gigantic, ubiquitous murals of the tyrant and addressed it thus: "What has befallen us of defeat, shame and humiliation, Saddam, is the result of your follies, your miscalculations and your irresponsible actions."
But the uprisings foundered on the rock of Saddam's residual strength, western betrayal and, in the south, their own disorganisation, vengeful excesses and failure to distance themselves from Iranian expansionist designs. Exploiting the Sunni minority's fear that if he went, so would many of them, in the most horrible of massacres, Saddam sent in his guards. Dreadful atrocities accompanied the slow reconquest of the south. And when the Guards turned north, the whole population of "liberated" Kurdistan fled in panic through snow and bitter cold to Iran and Turkey.
The television images of that grim stampede caught the measure of western betrayal. Four weeks previously, President George Bush senior had urged the Iraqis to rise up. But when they did so, he turned a deaf ear to their pleas for help. "New Hitler" Saddam might be, but he was also the only barrier against the possible break-up of Iraq itself. Saudi Arabia, for one, could not tolerate the prospect. It told the US it would work to replace Saddam with an army officer who would keep the country in safe, authoritarian, Sunni Muslim hands.
Saddam was saved again. And for 12 more years he hung on, as his people sank into social, economic and political miseries incomparably greater than those which had propelled him into Kuwait. Tikriti solidarity continued to preserve him against putsch and assassination. And never again would the people stage an uprising without assurance of success. Only the west could provide that. But the West, preoccupied with other crises, was paralysed.
The UN was meant to cure the failings of the League of Nations, however it has simply descended into the farce that the League of Nations. Ineffectual and lumbered with 2 opposing power blocks.
If the UN fails to uphold and enforce its own resolutions and charters, then what happens? People simply are left to oppression, torture, genocide? That isn't right at all.
The UK and the RN does have a history of acting for the good of others - disruption to the slave trade and work towards abolition of the slave trade as a very good example. However I sense NZB that you would have opposed such as actions as "interfering with the affairs of a sovereign state" given we attacked vessels belonging to other sovereign nations and attempted to prevent nations from selling members of their population as slaves to other nations.
The UN needs reform, as currently it is a toothless tiger with delusions of grandeur. Example being Rwanda where Dallaire asked for more troops and was refused time after time after time or the Srebrenica massacre. Both of which I am sure as an ex-Royal Marine you fully aware of.
I don't think either of those situations exactly make a case for the effectiveness of the UN in its current state, nor international laws on dealing with states who oppress and commit what could potentially be viewed as crimes against humanity such as those committed in both pre and post war Iraq. I'm talking about everyone, not just Saddam, not just Americans. Perhaps unfeasible to bring everyone to trial but something to aspire to, otherwise we could all to easily be on the slippery slope back to racks, thumbscrews and other methods of torture as a matter of course.
I don't agree with the way Saddam Hussein was deposed, there seems to have been no plan to deal with what happened after the fall of Saddam, plus all the backroom deals enacted by Cheney and friends did not help either. The weapons of mass destruction argument did not hold water at all, Perhaps if they had simply deposed him for the crimes he committed against his own population and actually had a plan of what to do next then things might not have turned into a bloodbath and a collection of neo con dodgy backroom deals.
Things are not a utopia, but why should we not aspire to create one? Where everyone is guaranteed a set of fundamental rights and those who contravene said rights are held to account.
I don't apologise for suggesting ways to act for the better, nor for suggesting intervention in the affairs of others where it would be for the good of the populace overall. Perhaps if Dallaire had been given a force with teeth and not had his hands tied then Rwanda might be remembered for something other than the massacres and genocide.
However I'm sure you will shoot down whatever I say no matter what I say.
So I'm not going to bother arguing or trying to further a discussion with you. You have your views and I have mine.
