Yep. But there's nothing to do with terrorism there, and that's the point I'm making... the terrorist connection is at best past and irrelevant. I'm sure we could depend on Rumsfeld etc. to mention anything credible and relevant - if there were such.
Uh Thames? Have you forgotten 1441? Iraq was not Afghanistan... Iraq was fought because the US was fed up with being required to contain Saddam's government while every other state in the region was undermining those efforts (violating the sanctions).
It was fought on the basis that there were strong indications that Saddam was continuing to violate the cease fire agreement (mobile biological laboratories are a violation).
GWBushJr. didn't go to the UN to claim that we should overthrow Saddam based solely upon terrorism.
BTW, our stance on enforcing UN resolutions would sound less hypocritical, more consistent, if we tried enforcing 242 and its many successors. Just a thought...
Have you looked at the UN charter recently? Chapter VII resolutions, such as the one against Iraq, are BINDING (ie: must be enforced, no nation can violate them, even your grandma can't violate them, No, not even if you say pretty please, with sugar on top, Well of, maybe if you cut me in for a cut of the profits so long as we keep it really quiet)..
But the resolutions regarding Israel are based upon Chapter VI, and are NON-BINDING since they are based upon the principle that ALL PARTIES must negotiate, arbitrate, and resolve their dispute peacefully... As we've seen, no particular party is obligated to abide by those resolutions (don't have to do it, wouldn't be prudent, they other guys are being mean, I can't trust the other side, maybe if they give me a cookie, or I want billions in economic and military assistance in exchange for being such a hardass)..
jcpa.org
What you should spend more time pondering Thames, IMO, is why so many goverments in Europe seemed so hell bent upon preserving Saddam's regime, given the brutality and corruption that has been revealed.
Mmm, yes, the PNAC agenda. Rebuild the ME be selective colonisation, for the good of the world (or at least that portion of it subservient to the US).
I guess you feel no obligation towards ending the authoritarian corruption in that region? Did you favor maintaining dictatorships in Latin America as well??
The region needs to be politically reshuffled. The demographics demand it since the population of some Arab nations consists of 50% children under 18. There is a population "bomb" getting ready to explode in the region, and neither Europe or the US will be able to avoid the effects of that (just as the US finds Mexicans flooding across our southern border scrambling to find jobs).
And annex the oil supply, of course.
For one, there's no way the US will be involved in annexing Iraqi oil. But let's say we entertain your dysfunctional logic, let me ask this question...
From whom have we annexed the oil??
1). From the Iraqi people who saw LITTLE benefit from its proceeds??
2). Or from Saddam, the guy who spent Iraq's oil wealth building incredibly decadent palaces and paying off his support base while the rest of Iraq was left to fend for itself???
While you obviously believe it's number 1... The reality is that it is number 2.
And you chose number 1 because you, like many others, wish to bias your analysis with your own political bias, as opposed to analyzing the actual reality.
In sum, there are any number of reasons that should have justified the overthrow of Saddam's regime. It just so happens that the UN resolution 1441, and Iraq's continuing defiance of previous resolutions, provided a legal context in which to carry out the job.
And to be quite frank, there are many other countries around the world that could use some regime change.. Governments that are butchering and oppressing their people
on a daily basis... (Congo?, Liberia?)
But in those cases we lack the legal pretext through the UN.
I guess we just differ on what our responsibilities are with regard to trying to better the lives of people around the world. You seem content to hide behind legalistic principles, permitting brutal regimes to continue repressing their own people, while at the same time threatening their neighbors. I, on the other hand, seek to effect positive change whereever the opportunity avails itself.
And no.. I don't feel we have an obligation to step in an overthrow every despotic regime. But we have an obligation to pressure those governments for political and economic change.. using economic sanctions that hit them in their pocket books.. The military should be left as a last option, as in Iraq.
Hawk |
