Point: When in doubt, invade another country
FROM THE DESK OF SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL --
I think I've solved our problem of not being able to capture Osama Bin Laden. Let's take over another country. We'll start by accusing them of something we can't prove, and then call up thousands of young men and women to risk their lives to push our ideals on someone else. When we can't find any weapons of mass destruction (of which we have plenty), we'll spin it a different way and talk about how we liberated the people. After we "win" a war that costs billions of dollars and more importantly, thousands of lives, we don't even have to leave! We can stay as long as we want, and send MORE troops over to make sure that our junior varsity U.S. has fair elections. Of course, we need to stay at least a couple years past the elections, just to make sure that their new government runs just the way we intended it to. In the interim, we can take as much oil as we want, setting all of us up quite nicely for plush private sector jobs in the future. I think this could be a GREAT diversion, let me know.
BACK ON PLANET EARTH --
I have no idea whether or not the people of Iraq feel liberated or not.
I have heard, through one of the soldiers there, that the people are angry, confused, and frustrated with the way the United States has taken over their country. I don't think that anyone can make the argument that Iraq isn't a better place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. That is not the point. The issue here is how does any one country have the right to just breeze into another, and enforce their wills and policies onto the weaker? Imagine for a second if this was North Korea, and they decided to invade Japan and run their country without just cause. The United Nations, led by the U.S., would go crazy and declare war. How is this case any different?
I think I've solved our problem of not being able to capture Osama Bin Laden. Let's take over another country. We'll start by accusing them of something we can't prove, and then call up thousands of young men and women to risk their lives to push our ideals on someone else. When we can't find any weapons of mass destruction (of which we have plenty), we'll spin it a different way and talk about how we liberated the people. After we "win" a war that costs billions of dollars and more importantly, thousands of lives, we don't even have to leave! We can stay as long as we want, and send MORE troops over to make sure that our junior varsity U.S. has fair elections. Of course, we need to stay at least a couple years past the elections, just to make sure that their new government runs just the way we intended it to. In the interim, we can take as much oil as we want, setting all of us up quite nicely for plush private sector jobs in the future. I think this could be a GREAT diversion, let me know.
BACK ON PLANET EARTH --
I have no idea whether or not the people of Iraq feel liberated or not.
I have heard, through one of the soldiers there, that the people are angry, confused, and frustrated with the way the United States has taken over their country. I don't think that anyone can make the argument that Iraq isn't a better place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. That is not the point. The issue here is how does any one country have the right to just breeze into another, and enforce their wills and policies onto the weaker? Imagine for a second if this was North Korea, and they decided to invade Japan and run their country without just cause. The United Nations, led by the U.S., would go crazy and declare war. How is this case any different?
posted by paul at 2:21 PM
2 Comments:
my dear friend...
let's see where to start here.
1. Lets begin wth your insinuation that the US's move into Iraq was about catching one man. This is so far off that you must be writing from a hole deeper than the one we found Saddam in. The move into Iraq was a message to the loose cannons of the world , especialy those experimenting with WMD, that the US will not tolerate them as threats to civilization. This is a message meant to reverberate in the Palestines and North Koreas of the world. The move to Iraq had very little to do directly with Osama. The overlap is that his bombings of the WTC let Bush know that he couldn't wait any longer to deal with these rogue nations, dictators, etc... This has been coming since the fall of the USSR and was originally the job meant to be addressed by the creation of the UN. Well we all know how effective they have been.
2. Ok the thought that "we can take as much oil as we want" is an interesting one. As far as I have noticed oil prices have gone up in our country which would suggest we are not actually getting any free rides. Interestingly the oil issue is one that keeps coming up in the press, but let's really examine the facts of the issues. Say we don't control the Iraqi oil what could happen here? Well, they could embargo the US, the largest consumer in the world, but to do that they would have to get the ok from OPEC. Even if that did happen the price pressures alone would probably make it difficult for OPEC to keep its membership intact. Any one of those countries would be able to spin off and sell to the US at hugely inflated prices, not to mention the political and military pull they would get out of it. Ok so it seems unlikely that we are scared of an embargo. Another senario would be that Iraq goes over the edge and quadrouples its production of oil with disreagrd to OPEC and floods the market with cheap oil. The effect of that would be a huge drop in the price of oil. Sounds bad right? God the US would be really screwed if oil prices were cut. Sorry just rubbing it in. Lastly there could be scenario where Iraq could destroy it's oil reserves much like they tried to do in Kuwait. This is probably the least likely scenario because it would destroy their only source of wealth and there would still be plenty of oil in the Middle East, Russia, and South America to quickly make up for the loss of the Iraqi fields. God, this is so wierd it really doesn't seem like there is any real interest for the US to control the Iraqi oil. Well I take that back if we were to really make Iraq a US colony and sell the oil ourselves using the cash to reduce our deficit or however else we felt like (maybe pay off the couple billion we spent geting rid of Saddam) that could be in our interest. As of yet I really can't see that playing out, but hey maybe you are more of a visionary than I.
3. You don't think anyone can make the argument that Iraq is a better place now that Saddam is out of power? Really? I mean do you really want me to lay this out for you? I just can't do it. I know you and like you. I just can't make you look so stupid on your own blog. By the way you owe me one for this.
4. Does any one country have the right to breeze into another, and enforce their wills and policies onto the weaker. If your answer is "no, never" than i guess you don't believe in right or wrong. Maybe for you it is all just a grey area. You do kind of seem to enjoy being the dictator at Boyleston street. maybe this is a window into your soul. How did you feel about the Kosovo situation? Was that misguided? Should we have just left that all alone?
5. Your notion that the UN would go to war at all is laughable but i think you can answer your own question. "How is this case any different?" If you can't spot the differences between N. Korea invading Japan and the US invading Iraq then I doubt you have the brain power to even be able to read this post.
To sum this all, because this post is not nearly as coherent as it deserves to be. If you believe that Osama and Al Queda is a one off, an abberation who just bliped on the radar screen of history then we see the world from a very different point of view. I believe that Al Queda is a symptom, reflective of the conflict between the radical philosophical leap the US took when it based its society on freedom, rights, and capitalism and the feudal and socialist systems still embraced by much of the world. This is a conflict that exhibited itself in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and now with the Middle East. Well... I belive in our founding fathers philosophies. I believe that they are the reasons the US is so powerful today. I believe in both defending and promoting these ideas and anyone who say that by doing this I am trying to force my will or policy on another really doesn't understand what these ideas are in the first place.
Sorry my friend, for now, I place you in that boat. I hear you can get a great deal on a house in France this time of year.
Mr. Anonymous - A well-written post. This is just the type of strong opinion that we were looking for when we founded point vs point long ago. Enough pleasantries though; on to the rebuttal.
You started off by saying "The move into Iraq was a message to the loose cannons of the world, especially those experimenting with WMD, that the US will not tolerate them as threats to civilization." I was not aware that we were appointed as the world's policeman and CEO; when did that happen? Why can the US alone decide right and wrong? I agree with you on the fact that powerful countries have a responsibility to aid weaker countries under attack, but where is the evidence that Iraq had WMD's? If the UN had found WMD's, then I would support going in there, and if the US had found WMD while there i would be the first to say "I was wrong; I'm glad we found something so the US doesn't look so dumb." Why is that the rest of the world wants no part of this war?
Don't misunderstand me here; I fully support the war on terror, and if you can prove that a link exists between Al-Qaida and Iraq, Iran, or any other country, I can get behind that as well. That would be a situation of defending our freedom, with facts and evidence.
You said, "Does any one country have the right to breeze into another, and enforce their wills and policies onto the weaker." My view of "right" in this case is a country helping a weaker one under attack, or having a proven reason to go into a country to help their people. By a proven reason, I mean the US consulting with the rest of the world; contrary to popular belief we are not the only country in the world. My view of "wrong" is going to war without concrete evidence.
You misquoted me on a key point. You said: "You don't think anyone can make the argument that Iraq is a better place now that Saddam is out of power?" Actually what I said was: "I don't think that anyone can make the argument that Iraq isn't a better place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power." It IS a better place, but look at the cost. Thousands of our countrymen have died in a war that no other country wanted a part of, a war that we had no firm motive to go into. What happens when the US forces pack up and leave? What's the chance that Iraq stays a democracy without us policing the country? Why are we running other countries at all? What about all of the Americans who lost a parent, a child, a spouse.
As Americans, we need to take care of our own first and foremost, and when we choose to fight for others, we, as the world's superpower, should be held to a higher standard for our actions. This constitutes a lack of judgement, a mistake no country should make, LEAST of all the juggernaut of the room.
Post a Comment
<< Home