I want to clarify my position regarding US power and international law.
My view:
IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.
However, it also didn't launch the war because of 'WMD'. It looked like a pretext then, and it looks like one now. Oh, I know it was one reason, but not the only one.
IMO, the reason the USA launched the war was because they were firmly convinced that Saddam was 'evil' and, as the good guys, they had a 'job to do' as the world's self-appointed policeman.
That's fine and everything, but I think myself and the ROW have a right to be a little suspicious about the following things:
A) Why now(then)?
B) Why Iraq?
C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?
Here's a wierd thing: I would be in favour of the war if it was actually part of an American policy to defeat evil dictators everywhere. If the reason really were that American had a government policy to 'crusade against evil and help the oppressed peoples of the world' (what pro-Americans think in their hearts is what they are doing in Iraq).
But they don't. There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared. Hell, that kind of **** happens to people the US doesn't like in Colombia, and they get aid for it instead of a bombing campaign.
I don't believe that it came down to oil. I don't even believe it came down to an Imperialist 'hunger for desolate places' (strategic location, power projection). I really think they thought they were doing it for 'the best of reasons'.....
So why is there no policy, why was it just a aberration, a one-off 'let's make the most of whatever pretext we can' thing?? If the US really wants to change the world through superior firepower whatever the cost I want to see Rumsfeld drawing up invasion task forces for all the vile(-er than the Bush admin) regimes of the world.
My view:
IMO, the USA didn't launch the war for 'oil'. The could have controlled it just by accomodating Saddam and making him their creature again.
However, it also didn't launch the war because of 'WMD'. It looked like a pretext then, and it looks like one now. Oh, I know it was one reason, but not the only one.
IMO, the reason the USA launched the war was because they were firmly convinced that Saddam was 'evil' and, as the good guys, they had a 'job to do' as the world's self-appointed policeman.
That's fine and everything, but I think myself and the ROW have a right to be a little suspicious about the following things:
A) Why now(then)?
B) Why Iraq?
C) Are we still operating within the realm of international law, where nations establish 'precedents' and follow 'policies', not just arbritary adventurism?
Here's a wierd thing: I would be in favour of the war if it was actually part of an American policy to defeat evil dictators everywhere. If the reason really were that American had a government policy to 'crusade against evil and help the oppressed peoples of the world' (what pro-Americans think in their hearts is what they are doing in Iraq).
But they don't. There was nothing special about Iraq from the dozens of other brutal totalitarian societies where people are beaten, tortured, and disappeared. Hell, that kind of **** happens to people the US doesn't like in Colombia, and they get aid for it instead of a bombing campaign.
I don't believe that it came down to oil. I don't even believe it came down to an Imperialist 'hunger for desolate places' (strategic location, power projection). I really think they thought they were doing it for 'the best of reasons'.....
So why is there no policy, why was it just a aberration, a one-off 'let's make the most of whatever pretext we can' thing?? If the US really wants to change the world through superior firepower whatever the cost I want to see Rumsfeld drawing up invasion task forces for all the vile(-er than the Bush admin) regimes of the world.
Comment