|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-22 18:37:27
No, my allusion to greed does not mean specifically oil, I mean it in a prime-motivator, or dogma aspect. The fact that statements were issued to appease the fears that this action is soley motivated by oil interests does not mean that they are true. Lying to accomplish a larger goal has been done in the past. The US, for example, lied to the world about their motivations regarding the invasion of Panama, and concealed the truth from their own people by manipulating the media. The UN issued a resolution demanding the immediate stop to their invasion, and demanded the withdrawl of their troops. The UN also demanded that the US honour the treaty signed between Truillos and Carter giving control of the canal back to Panama in 1999. The UN, however, was powerless to enforce thier resolutions, and the US went ahead and arrested Noriega, a US Army and CIA paid contractor when he refused to tear up the treaty.
In response to your points,
1. Yes, you can negotiate with terrorists if it serves US interests. The Iran-Contra affair was exactly that. Money and arms were traded with a nation that had kidnapped US citizens. The monies received were used to fund other terrorists, the Contras, in central America to secure US interests there. If it serves US interests, there is no foul, for US interests are perceived to be the greatest good.
2. The US has supported many terrible dictators in the past, and present, so the arguement that they wish to oust dictators for the benefit of Humanity is false. They help dictators when they have ecomnomic interests there, they oust those who do not serve the interests of the US. Saddam's biggest 'faux-pas' seems to be adopting the Euro, and not the US dollar, as it's currency of choice. Saddam's aggression against his neighbors, notably Iran and Kuwait, are indeed well documented. In which case did the US act? When Iraq was at war with Iran, did the US help Iran? No. There was nothing to gain for the US. Instead they grew richer by selling both sides arms. Kuwait, on the other hand, had a US freindly regime.(even though, in Kuwait, one cannot publish a book or a map that implies the existence of Israel).
3. Cretien did the right thing by siding with the UN and international precedent by not supporting ANY nation commiting policide without the express consent of the UN. The world will go to hell so much faster if any or all countries, no matter who they are, decide that they can take 'International Law' into their own hands. It is a principle matter, not an individual case matter. While I agree our PM should have been more forthcoming in his support after 9/11, this Iraqi invasion is completely different. Almost the entire 'coalition of the willing' is only acting in name alone, and only because of economic interests, like US, IMF and World Bank loan guarantees. Those names were bought.
4. The trade between Canada and the US is not in as great a jeopardy as many fear. Canada has much more of what we both need and the US is aware of it. We don't need as much 'Geraldo' as they need fresh water, oil, and softwood lumber.
In closing, I would like to say that the US only acts in their own self interests, they always have and always will. Saddam Hussein should have been arrested for the use of poison gas against the Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels, and perhaps at the time the US would have been welcomed as the 'police'. Not now, though. Bush has damaged the reputation of the US, perhaps even fatally, by his open declaration that the US is above international law and will conquer the world by force.
Reply to this message
|
