Posted by Rog the Dodge on April 17, 2003 at 15:04:14:
In Reply to: Re: why can't anyone stop this insanity?????? posted by steveA on April 17, 2003 at 10:48:19:
Steve A and Nick Reyes in their US-centric responses demonstrate quite clearly what the problem is.
Let's review the Iraq question.
First off, the regime of Saddam Hussein was evil and despicable and he was no blessing to his people. But removal of a despot, and I'll come to that in a moment, was not the first reason given by the Blair-Bush Project for invasion. In Bush's terms, Iraq was part of his 'axis of evil', that is, nations, which, following 11 September were deemed to have or supported Bin Laden's terrorist action against the USA, though Iraq's involvement in such remains unproven to this day, and I'll return to that. Failure to comply with UN resolutions since 1991 was what was the given as a reason though in the end the Blair-Bush Project didn't give a toss for the UN and decided on unilateral action. The USA's client state, Israel, has also been in breach of a substantial number of UN resolutions for longer in respect of territory illegally occupied in 1973 and might be presumed, by its actions (or rather inactions), to be as great a threat to regional security as was Iraq thought to be. Questions of double standards arise which may not be apparent within the USA but are most certainly a cause for concern in the wider world.
From seeking Iraq's illusive if not illusionary, hoard of WMD, the Blair-Bush Project altered the target to removal of a despot. This is a very shaky concept for a nation, despite it's internal horrors, is not a target for invasion merely because it is ruled by a despot who achieved power by doubtful means (think of Florida). It implies some absolute standard of assessing appropriate behaviour in the rulers of other nations, but this is the same Saddam who was supported by the USA during the Iran/Iraq war. He's not changed, so the absolute standard is not absolute, it's relative and it's relative to the threats imagined by the USA. In this case, that Iraq had started trading oil in euros which threatened the USA's economic situation whereby it's in debt to the rest of the world but offsets such debt against future dollar payments for oil.
The Blair-Bush Project now switched the reason for the invasion to the humanitarian crisis arising from Saddam's mismanagement of Iraq, forgetting that 12 years of UN sanctions had been contributory to the Iraqi peoples' distress. There's no way ruling cliques ever suffer from such impositions.
Within days the target had switched back to the WMD simply because none had been found and the Blair-Bush Project started to eye up Syria on the pretext that a number of misguided Syrian youths had acted as mercenaries in Saddam's army, the coalition suspected that the regime leaders were in Syria or had used it as an escape hatch or that the missing WMD were now in Syria. The only two facts that the Blair-Bush Project has had in this sorry mess is that Saddam was a tyrant and that he'd ignored the UN. Blair and Bush may not be tyrants but they're quite happy to ignore the UN because it doesn't suit them. Yet more double standards.
Or is this all too complicated and demanding of rather more thought than simplistic notions of defending freedoms. Iraq was never a threat to the USA or the UK. It may have been a threat to their trading interests but that's "free trade", the mantra of the USA.
Invading nations and removing leaders just because you don't like them will lead inexorably to a Third World War. It doesn't stop with Iraq and this what terrifies anyone who seeks to understand what's really going on here. Just because the US news media feeds pap to the citizenry is no excuse for not trying to find out.
Oh, and by the way, if you've got this far, read the book.
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet