Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Political rant

Bush has charged that the United Nations risked being irrelevant by not forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. orders to dispose of weapons of mass destruction.

Thinking about the fact that the US invaded Iraq against the decision of the UN, it is pretty clear that it is the Bush administration that is forcing the issue of irrelevancy.
But for a moment, let's put that aside and concentrate on the "weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD) argument:

Simply, none have been found.

The Bushians predicated the invasion of Iraq on the need to disarm Saddam Hussein. So much so that they went against the U.N. decision. When no WMDs were found, there was a lot of rambling about "freeing the Iraqui people", which is a pretty weak argument considering the other humanitarian efforts that the Bush administration has put forward in other parts of the world.

Nope, I don't buy it. I think the administration lied to us. Aside from a passing note of sadness that this is not even unexpected behavior, I have this odd fascination with wondering why Bush & Co wanted to invade.

Was it for oil? This is the most touted alternate reason that I've heard, but I don't believe it, or at least not as the primary reason. Certainly George's ties to the oil companies are near and dear, but the political climate and physical distance make for difficult dealings at best. If it was oil we were after, we would be better off to invade Venezuela-- it's a lot closer, and has more oil. Heck, we could buy Venezuela.

Was it to stimulate the economy? War is a known economy-stimulant. Throwing a few billion buckeroonies at something, and sure, it is bound to have an effect. But the duration of the war was too short to have any lasting effect.

Was it a personal vendetta? Bush vs. Hussein? Possible, but awfully damn egotistical. And no, I don't think that George is that egotistical or stupid. It could be a contributing factor.

But here's one that seems to fit:
We invaded Iraq in order to show other "terrorist-supporting" countries that we will not stop at our borders, that if we don't like what they are doing, we will fuck with them, quickly and violently.

Iraq was an easy target. They've been defiant of a lot of restrictions for the last umpteen years, and their economy was so weakened that they had nothing left to fight with . However, other Middle Eastern countries have been cowed by Iraq in the past, so taking Iraq so quickly has a symbolic message attached to it. There was no guile. There was no underside. There was only invasion, out in the open where everyone could see it, big and strong and decisive. And the implied message is "you could be next".

Alas, we are the new Rome.

  • (no subject)

    It finally happened. It had to, really. I was in the bottom two cut from LJ-Idol this week. I made it to the top 50, from some rather larger…

  • Mayville

    "Too many bats in the belfry, eh?" The question came from a small man in the scrubs-and-robe garb of an inmate. He looked a little like a garden…

  • LJ-Idol

    Another batch of entries. Consistently amazed at how good the writing is. Voting is open for…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.