Originally posted by educatedfilmI think that any accustatons of Imperialism are based on a very flawed reading of the situation. Just as it is a common human trait to label an opponent as stupid, it is a common PR move to label American foreign policy as Imperialism. I congatulate you on your observation that extreme groups of any persuasion use similar tactics. Now make the next step, and examine the situation without such prejudicial attribution of reputed motives.
...Imperialism needn't be plain outright as it once was with the freign flag flying high over someone else's homeland.. just a freindly face for the cameras, and iron fist for the locals, and a willingness to deal with large checks with out asking questions that have morals/ scruples... I've also sifted through alot of Arabic/ Isreali/ White supremist/ leftist/ right wing propaganda... and find it really intresting that the tactics are the same...
What's in it for the US? Why [u]now[/u]? Why isn't it enough, when the UN passes Resolution 1441?
What's in it for the US?
In short, economic hardship, (as described by Raskolnikov), a military action that will subject the American populace to TV images of their young men being stuffed into body bags half-way around the world, a groundswell of popular revulsion that wii probably destroy a presidency, troubled relations with such fair-weather 'friends' as France and Germay. Jeez, that sounds like fun!
I think that future generations will look back on this, (assuming they have more interest in History than the current generation) and wonder why there was so much opposition to doing the right thing. Why are countries that support the US initiative being portrayed as having no other choice, as if they were somehow coerced into their position? Why is there so little notice taken of the fact France and Germany are the only NATO members who are dragging their heels? I suggest that George W. Bush, gaffe-prone as he is, has a much better grasp of the situation, and it's ramificatons, than his critics are prepared to admit.
Why [u]now[/u]?
It is obvious that this wouldn't be necessary now, if George Bush senior had finished the job 12 years ago. At the time, it was thought that such action would be seen as unjustfiable. The mandate from the UN only allowed for forceful removal of Iraq's army from Kuwait. At the time, the UN was seen to be a legitimate forum of the world's governments. At the time, it was hoped that the people of Iraq would be able to finish off Saddam Hussein without foreign intervention. In summary, invading Iraq did not seem like the right thing to do, at the time, [u]Now is the time[/u]!
Why isn't it enough, when the UN passes Resolution 1441?
The UN has become a meaningless joke in terms of acting to represent the governments of the world. The recent election of Libya to chair The Human Rights Committee is just one recent example of how badly a once-proud concept has been perverted. I'm sure 'Daffy' Ghadaffi has much to tell us all, about how to foster respect for the dignity and security of all individuals, ragardless of race or creed! {note to ed: that's sarcasm!}
Even if the Security Council was not stymied by France and Germany trying to avoid having their part in creating this fiasco come to light, the validity of such documents as Resolution 1441, is directly proportional to the perceived enforcement. Uh, that's like [u]zero[/u] at the moment. In concrete terms, in 12 years of ineffective hand-wringing, the UN has done nothing to persuade Saddam Hussein to chnge his ways. Only the recent promise of US armed intervention has stimulated any kind of response.
"Peaceful ways" to persuade someone to change are only effective with those who are willing to respond to them. There is no conscience to be appealed to here. If some Mahatma Ghandi disciples attempted non-violent protest in Bhagdad, they would simply be shot where they sat, and the bodies left to fester in the sun as a warning to others. Remember that image. After Saddam Hussein is removed, such verifiable stories will emerge.
