At 03:41 AM 3/24/2004 -0500 Tom Beck wrote:
>Fine. Let's say that you have a point. Let's say that your reasoning
>gives an arguable justification for the USA's invasion of Iraq. Then -
>WHY THE [HECK] DID BUSH NOT USE THIS AS HIS PRIMARY
>JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
>WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE?
1) It is worth noting that much of what I had to say *was* listed as a
major reason for invading Iraq. In particular, Paul Wolfowitz made no
secret of the benefits that a democratic Iraq might bring to the US in the
Middle East, and these ideas can also be found in the President's speeches.
2) Despite what you think about getting "the rest of the world to go along
with" this - the argument above would have been an absolute non-starter at
the United Nations. In particular, the People's Republic of China has a
veto on the UN Security Council - and certainly would not accept such a
reason. Moreover, many of the United Nations membership also comes from
unfree countries that certainly would not accept such logic. Furthermore,
such logic very arguably violates international law and the UN Charter
whatever its strategic merits.
Thus, in order to try and build an international coalition a legal
justification was needed..... and Iraq's self-evident non-compliance with
UN resolutions on WMD disclosure, resolutions enforced with an "all
necessary means" clause provided exactly the legal case that was needed.
Even this (fig leaf of - if you are a war opponent) legal justification did
not exist for any other country.
3) Successful execution of the Iraq war, especially in the initial plans,
required the cooperation of the decisively non-democratic countries of
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the UAE, and to a lesser extent
Jordan, Syria, and Iran. Using the above logic as primary justification
for the war would not only have undermined our claims to legal legitimacy,
and would also seriously have jeopardized the necessary strategic
cooperation of countries in the region.
>Why are we supporting similarly anti-Semitic, anti-freedom regimes
>in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, etc.?
Well, I believe that you opposed the "Axis of Evil" speech, did you not?
I also believe that you are opposed the idea of the US crusading around the
world, invading countries we do not like, correct? And yet you say that
the rest of the world would have supported by above logic for invading
Iraq, so can I presume that you would as well?
Anyhow, the answer to your question is self-evident. The US is not
capable of invading and/or rebuilding all of these countries at once.
Indeed, I think that it is fair to say that we have our hands full with
Iraq at the moment. Nevertheless, the Bush Administraiton has made no
secret of the fact that they are committed to seing the rebuilding of Iraq
through to successful completion - and have made no secret of their hope
that freedom in Iraq will serve as a catalyst for (hopefully peaceful)
democratic change in its neighbors.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
