What put Bush Sr. on the side of the angels on the Kuwait issue was national boundaries. Do they stand for something, or not?
Or is it OK to steal another country's territory, or steal the whole country?
Interesting thought, Frank. What leads you to believe this? My own answer was James Baker's, "jobs, jobs, jobs". Meaning the
critical character of oil for the American economy. Not to mention his Houston buddies.
Kuwait and Bush Sr: It doesn't matter what Bush's motivation was because as I said he was on side of the angels.
History shows aggression rewarded usually leads to further aggression, especially when the aggressing country is run by a tyrant or a totalitarian ideology.
Do you think Hussein was going to be satisfied only with Kuwait?
I don't think the US made war to feather the nests of Bush's Texas friends or keep up employment. Democracies go to war for more serious reasons. There is usually great debate before they do, if they haven't been attacked.
There has to be a principle.
The point of a country is boundaries.
Kuwait is not much of a democracy but it's not a tyranny like Iraq.
War to steal territory on the part of significant size countries takes on new meaning in an era of weapons of mass destruction. This is especially so if there is doubt about mental/emotional makeup of leader.
Ideological war, to expand the true religion, the glory of the leader, the destiny of the fatherland, takes on new meaning in an era of weapons of mass destruction.
Also:
un.org
I recommend Articles 1 and 2.
WW2 was just over and drafters and signatories had it very fresh in their experience.
Chapter 7, also. |
