Old Man: I am not well versed enough in the happenings in and around South Africa ten years ago to comment on the analogy.
You write: “I can understand your reasoning when there is a direct threat to a country BUT the only threat to the USA is their trading partners in the region! There is ABSOLUTELY no way that Iraq poses a direct threat to the USA. In the days when the USSR posed a direct threat to the USA, the USA did nothing - maybe because they could not bully the USSR as they can push other small nations around today? I'm sorry, but you and the other USA'ers are clutching at straws in defending an action that history will not smile kindly on.”
I wish I was as certain as you that Iraq poses no direct threat to the US. I consider aiding and assisting terrorists who have targeted US civilians, US economic institutions and US presences wherever they are in the world as a direct threat to the USA and its people. If Saddam has not done so already, it is only because he lacked the means of doing so, not the will. I see no reason why we should let him obtain the means and use them before taking pre-emptive action in self-defense.
Further, some of the “trading partners” you identify are much more than just “trading partners.” For instance, it is established NATO doctrine that an attack on one NATO Member is an attack on all NATO members. Similarly, we have a long standing commitment to defend the existence of Israel. While we have discharged this commitment by supplying sufficient weapons and money for Israel to defend itself without the commitment of US military troops, the possibility of Saddam’s use of WMD sort of skews planning as to what may be required of us in the future. While you may view these as “indirect” threats that don’t justify application of the doctrine of self-defense, legitimate arguments exist on the other side as well. Since the lives of myself, my fellow countrymen and our closest allies are at issue, I come down on that other side of the coin.
On the issue of the USSR, I cannot understand how you could say that the US “did nothing” in response to the direct threat posed by the USSR. We did plenty during a 50 plus year Cold War to confront the USSR and our actions led to the clear defeat of the Soviet empire.
Funny thing about history, an act is usually judged based upon what happens in the lengthy aftermath of the act itself. If we take out Saddam (alone or with others) and Iraq becomes a revitalized economic powerhouse with a democratic leaning government within a decade or two, history will indeed smile kindly on us for what we did.
Nadia: Since neither of us is in the employ of an intelligence service, about the only thing we can say with certainty is that no one has provided the general public with tangible evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. My support for removing Saddam and belief that the self defense doctrine could be applicable as justification does not depend on linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. If Saddam were allowed to build an arsenal of WMD, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would use them against American interests and/or gladly supply them to others who would so use them. While you may believe that the US is required to wait until the first nerve agent developed by Iraq is set loose in the New York subways before we may act in self-defense, I don’t share that view.
