|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-24 19:47:23
I absolutely agree with point #4, and I believe that is why Chretien took the stand that he did.
Regarding to your last paragraph, I would only change a few words.
" The US desires a world with normal countries and normal leaders who want peace and stability for the US.(All others would represent an opportunity for Arms sales and resource exploitation)."
" To rid the world of people who espouse death cults, suicide as a means of terror, and mass murder when they do not serve US interests."
" To end the legitimizing effects the UN has on the world's despots and tyrants who do not serve US interests."
Yes I am twisting your words, but with precedent, I think.
China has openly crushed democracy, refuses human rights monitoring, and has committed acts of international aggression (the annexation of Tibet, their refusal to acknowledge the right to self-determination of Taiwan, referring to it as a 'naughty province', etc) yet the US (and Canada) continue to give it #1 status as a trading partner.
It is BECAUSE they have no human rights that they are able to offer profitable labour and therefore crushing democracy in this case serves US interests. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, indeed many hard-line Muslim countries that live by Sharia Law which the west finds deplorable, are considered key US allies as long as they continue to serve US interests. When they do not, the US 'stands up for human rights' and denounces them. When they do serve US interests, they can count on a veto by the US in the UN security council.
Reply to this message
|
