Shinichi Endymiron K
I came across this article regarding the War in Iraq and US/UN relations. I want to say upfront that I do support the war effort. I was once in the US Army and am considering returning. MY politics aside I'd like to hear what others have to say after reading this article and all pertinant sidebars pertaining to it. Thank you.
My Ideal War
One could write books in response. I will say a few things in the hopes that my brevity does not fail prey to a lack of substance.
There is no world community per se. There may be someday but there is not now. For now, there are only floating alliances much like in gradeschool, or maybe high school. I have heard that international relations are best understood in terms of child psychology.
The goal of spreading democracy is foolish and,I believe, a lie. It is much like truth is sold in any given "justice system." Truth, like democracy, is not the goal. The goal is for conflicts to reach the lowest point of energy so the status quo can be maintained. If truth or democracy happen to occur then the powers that be take the fortune of that occurence to market their particular beliefs. The countries at issue have not even had a Renaissance, how could they be expected to appreciate, much less willingly adopt, Enlightenment era political views? To spread democracry cannot be the real reason. If it was I have thought of how ironic it would be that a 21st century Republican is espousing the views of an early 20th century Democrat (Woodrow Wilson).
Was it weapons of mass destruction? I cannot see that either for they are everywhere. We have taken no action against North Korea, India, China, or any of that club. That reason never made sense other than as a marketing tool.
Why are we there? Oil? No, there are easiler ways to keep that going. I have thought and thought and the best I can come up with is in the following paragraph. Of course, however, the caveat is taht in trying to find a reason I may have overlooked that there was no reason, just a constellation of interests as is often the case in commencing any war. I do not know but, if there is a reason, I think I may have it.
I believe the bottom line is that if the US was not there dangling a ready target in the neighborhood of the part of the world where terrorists seem to take the most comfort then we would be battling them at home. Taking the fight to the foe that despises us and wants to end our existence is only logical in a world where freer and freer borders make terrorism easier to execute.
I can justify the logic of the preceding paragraph. What I cannot understand is why we did not have a leader with enough guts to tell us this from the beginning (if he even thought of it). As an aside, as inept as one may argue that Bush has been, the alternative would have been disastrous.
I realize that in stating even these few views I will have angered everyone from the Bush supporters to the Bush haters.
Whatever your views, stop and think. There is a substantial movement to destroy everything we ("Western Civilization" and its antecedents all over the world) hold dear that has been accomplished since, oh about 1500, maybe even before. They may be right. We may be right. Who knows? Who cares? We are both bent on survival. I am in complete agreement with being proactive in destroying those that have my demise as their goal. As for "understanding," I only need to understand like I understand a termite to get it out of my house. As for "negotiation," I do not negotiate with one trying to throw me off a cliff my bargaining with even one or two steps back.
Begun the Clone Wars have.....
Andan Taldrya Marshall
That article describes an impossibility. What's more it points out itself, though not directly, why it is impossible for the situation to have gone that way. The simple fact is that there were a few key countries that were involved in trade with Iraq and would not have allowed a UN resolution like what was outlined to pass. I'm talking specifically about France and the food-for-oil program. France is a perminant member of the UN Security Council with veto power. If such a resolution had come before the council France would have realized that they were about to loose their source of cheap oil and blocked the resolution. We may have been able to go around the UN and convince other countries to aid us in fighting in Iraq, but there is no way that a resolution like the one described in the article would have passed.
Let me also remind everyone that hindsight is 20-20. We know quite a bit more about what was going in inside Iraq and between Iraq and other countries now then we did 3 years ago. Now there is more information to justify the invasion and occupation. I don't object specifically to the war itself, I take offence to the fact that we as a country were misled as to why we were in Iraq in the first place. If we'd been told that we were going in to remove a horrible dictator who had killed hundreds of his own people in retalitation for an assassonation attempt and who was funding and harboring terrorists then I'd be much less offended by the entire war. I don't pretend to know why Bush didn't explain these things at the onset of the war so I won't even take a stab at it. All I know is that I and the rest of the country were misled, even possibly lied to, about why we were there. That's why I'm angry.