so it begins …

Straight-off: I don’t agree with this war; and I don’t agree with it in several different areas.
Now, that being said, Saddam is well recognized as being a leader that is in violation of international law, war crime acts, and UN resolutions. He, in interest to the citizens of Iraq, should be removed.
I also understand the continued feeling of ‘fear’ due to the Sept. 11 attacks. It was horrible, devastating, and forced the US (and indeed North America) into a new reality.
And as for the UN, it must be difficult for one organization to get almost 191 members to agree on anything. This is, however, an organization that is designed to help those citizens that cannot help themselves.
I was sad but relieved to hear that the US had finally taken action against Iraq.
Sad but Relieved? Yes. I am sad because it means that the democratic philosophy that we in the “west” hold so dear failed. That one power could attack without the support of the majority. And yet relieved because not only will Saddam finally be removed, but because maybe the markets will stabilize and my stocks go up. Not to mention the American dollar – I am working down here again you know!!!!
Now, why don’t I agree with this fight ?
I don’t believe that the US has the right, based on International Law to enter into a “regime change” military operation. Just because you don’t like, fear, or even distrust another power does not give you the right to invade their personal space. That is the same mentality that started world wars. The international community had taken steps to solve the fears of W.M.D. in Iraq (as well as other parts of the world). The country was under sanctions that heavily limited the health of its economy. Under those conditions it is up to the people to revolt and cause a regime change from within. The US needs only to look to its own history to see that. I doubt they would have really welcomed a full on invasion of the French to oust the British — support yes — occupation; I doubt it.
Then there is the whole notion of democracy … one of the touted reasons for removing the tyrant Saddam is to give the country democratic rights. It was nice to have the US set such a good example by not allowing such a democratic process take place in the UN Security Council. Being democratic does not mean that when you don’t win the support you take control anyway. How would US government structure function if such conditions applied … well, Gore did not win the election, but since he was already there he just decided not to ‘give back the keys?? See … doesn’t work.
And, now where does it stop. The US and Britain have now opened the door to a whole new world order. They have stated, quite clearly, that if you feel threatened then it is OK to take military action — even if the world does not agree with you. So, does India invalid Pakistan? Russia has no reason not to invade rogue states. Hmm … and Mr. Kim Jong-il you better look out, the US is not happy with you of late either.
My point is that the US has basically made it clear that the UN and the Security Council do not matter in today?s world. They security comes first, even if the treat is not documented (and if such a threat was a clear as Bush and Blair state that countries like Canada, France, Germany, and Russia would be so apposed?) At least 3 have those countries have known the costs of war, tyrant leaders, and the results of ‘non-action’ better than anyone other.
Does this situation help or hinder the world? Will this create a more peaceful society? Will this help expand American interests throughout the globe? And will be finally get rid of all those leaders that violate human rights – or is this going to be another ‘only if it serves our interests’ mandate?
Either way, history classes for the next 50 years will have topics to write those many papers on eh. It will be interesting to see how the world views this situation in 5, 10, 50, or even 100 years ??

Comments are closed.