I skimmed the other threads and I don't think this was covered:

At what point does one country have the right to depose a foreign government and install a new one?

Supplementary, is it bad taste(or just blatant propaganda) to privately call such an operation "Iraqi Freedom?"


*edited for grammar

Probably never. I think it may be okay (depending on circumstances) for a country to offer assistance if the citizens of the other country were already involved in overthrowing a dictator, but I don't think it's for us to decide another country's fate for them. Notice I said "alread involved in overthrowing" -- there should be no doubt that it's the will of the people.

I don't know if it was bad taste -- more of a political strategy. By naming "Iraqi Freedom" they made the war seem to be about giving the Iraqis freedom. It's a tactic used by the GWB admin. for other things as well --

"Clear Skies Initiative" that allows more pollution.

Healthy Forest Initiative that allows the forest to be destroyed in order to avoid being destoyed -- kind of like liberating the Iraqis by killing them.

There are many that won't know these details, of course, and so the title becomes the propaganda that allows people to feel good about going to war.

I'd say the Allies had the right to depose the Third Reich, Imperial Japan, and Mussolini's government. They attacked us.

We didn't, but someone (at not just the Rwandan rebels) should have deposed the genocidal government of Rwanda.

I don't have hard-and-fast rules, but I'd say the lives of thousands take precedence over self-determination.

A good point. As soon as I read the question, I wondered how WW2 would fit.

I tend to side with jenreiautter that in principle, we should never set out to depose a foreign government and install another. We didn't fight WW2 purely to remove the Nazis or Japanese Emperor from power, we fought them because they attacked us or our allies. In these cases it became clear during the war that the only way to win and remove future threats would be to remove the sitting governments.

And while the Allies did run interim administrations until local ones could be set up, there was no interference in the outcome of the elections that eventually took place.

I'd like to think that the latter holds true for our intentions in Iraq, but it doesn't seem likely, since if the Iraqi people chose a religious extremist government we'd most likely depose them as well until they pick one we like.

I'm really not sure how to answer that question except by saying, its wasn't our right this time.

In the past, it seems we Americans took pride in having the moral high ground by not starting wars. Once attacked by a foreign power, though, it can be said that we fought hard and bravely and we savored the victory.

With a preemptive war, the claim that we have the moral high ground has a hollow ring to it. Granted, some people really don't care whether that is the case or not, but many of us like to think we prefer peaceful ways of solving problems.

The situation with North Korea is one of those where, if the crazy dictator goes much further off the deep end, the United States might have to take the first action. I surely hope we don't have to start something. And yet South Korea wants our forces to pretty much stay out of it. Since they are the ones who stand to lose the most, I believe we should honor their wishes.

But that's the problem with possible nuclear conflict. And quite frankly, I would prefer someone better at diplomacy and, if it comes to that, brinksmanship than our current Commander-in-Chief.

At what point does one country have the right to depose a foreign government and install a new one?

At the point when the UN sanctions it by means of a vote on the subject of regime change.

At this point I am not clear on whether or not UN resolution 1441 sanctions the war in Iraq since although many countries say it does, many say it does not, and the UN itself has said 1441 did not justify the coalition's attack against Iraq.

Having said that though, the coalition did remove Saddam Hussein, and he was a threat to the world about him. He may not have had the WMD's that Bush and Blair claimed he had, but in my (warped?) sense of morality, removing a murdering dictator is not anything I'm going to cry about.

What troubles me about the war in Iraq, and there fore any other such actions which may follow it, is the obvious attempt by the Bush administration to capitalise on the war for own gain going so far as to put the American geo-political profit agenda before the lives of the Iraqi people.

This is my first post.

We have the right becuase we were attacked. Maybe not directly by Saddam and his other party but by people that he was supplying aid to. Also if you remember what we did for Husien when the first Bush was president then you understand how he went agianst the americans.

uhavenoidea




Yeah? What did you do for Hussein when the first Bush was President?

For my part, I've yet to see any single shred of any sort of proof or evidence that linked Saddam Hussein to any sort of attack against the USA. And certainly nothing that justified an invasion.

The way I see it, the answer is obvious.

The only time you can feel any legitimacy invading another state is when, if the situation were reversed, you would feel comfortable having another country invade YOU for the same reasons.

Under what circumstances would you, as an American, be willing to see the United States invaded occupied and your government deposed by a foreign power or a world agency such as the UN? (Assuming for a moment such a thing were possible)

Once you have a list of situations in which you would be willing to see another country invade the US, you have right there a list of situation when it would be acceptable for the US to invade another.

I am willing to be the list is pretty small.

Vermillion-

This hits the nail on the head! I believe that is an excellent criterion.

I would also like to add that it also be considered that that particular nation who invades us could:

**cause a lot of civilian deaths (that would be people you know, possibly family or friends, maybe even you or your children might be the "collateral damage")

**damage to the infrastructure

**may privatize against our will and use their own contractors to rebuild, while many of us will be without work

**They may also attempt to foist an ideology on us that we are unwilling to accept


We can't assume that an "invading nation" would have similar ideas about what is best for us, similar ways of looking at the world, or our best interests at heart.