RapVerse.com Community - View Single Post

i swore i wouldn't get involved in this....alas

The problem as I see it with the actions of the Bush Administration and the British is that they acted alone. Yes, other countries joined (were bought off), but it was manly an American/British war.

It doesn't matter if there were WMD's, terrorist, etc.etc. There are lot's of countries that qualify for these things (Korea). Saddam was the worst among many in a region where the US wanted to make a show of force and so he got taken out as an example to other leaders (dictators) in the surrounding countries.

Why did the Bush administration do this?

- To protect against terrorism? Maybe a little.
- To gain control of more Oil? Doesn't hurt to have more Oil.
- To test drive their new tanks? Hey, generals can only play defense for so long.

- To set a new precident in American foriegn policy that will allow the US to increase their Political/Economic/Military dominance in the world? Bingo.

The US did what they though was in their best interest. And maybe in the long term it will be. My own opinion is that countries shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they think is in their own best interest when it comes to international affairs without the consent of a UN majority. Why? Because every country does what is in their own best interest. Everyone.

So should we let Korea develope a nuclear program because they might need to destroy Japan sometime in the future? Should China be allowed to kick Taiwan's ass? etc. etc.

Frankly, I don't buy the 'We are the US and we are the most free nation in the world therefore we are the best and we know what's best for everyone esle so shut up if you don't like us' philosophy.

Sure the US is free, but if they are any more free than people in Canada, UK, France, Netherlands, Japan, etc. etc. then it is by fractions, and in no way gives you the moral superiority that is used to justify it's actions in many of these debates.

(Side note: In my opinion Americans who believe this look at other countries and think 'they don't have the NFL and Macdonads' and this translates into 'America is more free than they are'. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against American culture, in fact i am quite fond of it. However, lack of American culture does not equal lack of freedom. Sure you have the most magazines and newspapers, you have more money to pay for them all. But name a western country where freedom of speech is not allowed.)

The thing is, if you want to remove dictatorships then they should have said that's what they wanted to do. However, if they want to remove terrorism then you will have to work with the countries where terrorist ideolgy is breeded into youth (Saudi Arabia) and stop it at the source. Attacking Arab nations, even if it is for their own benefit, will only encourage terrorism.

The last point i'll make is that both Afganistan and Iraq are a mess. Instilling democratic structures into these countries will take decades because the majority of the people have to get used to placing there trust in the government and it's institutions for stability to occur. Historically democracy has usually only worked succesfully after a significant period of occupation by a nation (usually England or France) that forced these institutions into place.

If the US continues to occupy Iraq for the neccessary time required for democracy to take hold terrorism will grow tenfold. They are now realising this, and now they need the UN because it is seen as a neutral authority, and not the 'western devil'. (Well, not as much as the US). Which is why they should have taken the time to lay out the entire strategy and get everyone on board, instead of jumping the proverbial gun because they though the population is stupid and they could only get support while 9/11 was fresh on the collective conscience.