|
A US war against Iraq justifies pre-emptive wars
by Matt Giwer, © 2002 [September] |
|---|
|
Pre-emptive strikes leading to war
OK, maybe Bush thinks it is our turn. Others who have done it have not turned out for the better. I have a problem with it. Those redneck fundamentalists, those Pentecostals, do in fact want an American empire. They do in fact want war in the Middle East. No nation is a threat to the US unless it wishes to suffer nuclear annihilation. No nation includes Iraq. Nations bordering Iraq do not consider it a danger to them. They are not clamoring for war. They are warning against war. A pre-emptive war requires the threat be serious and immediate and that all other means short of war be exhausted. Serious means the threat must be capable of causing serious harm. Immediate requires there is no time to try other means short of war. IF not immediate them all other means short of war must have been exhausted first. The proposed war against Iraq has satisfied none of these criteria. So far all of the arguments have stated, in a deliberately unclear manner, that Iraq does not even have the capability to be a threat. They have stated that at some time in the indeterminate future, Iraq may obtain those weapons. This means there is not now a serious threat. If it is not a serious threat now, it is not an immediate threat. As there is no immediate threat there is no reason to bother with talking about inspections or compliance or anything else as a potential cause of war. Iraq is not an immediate threat so forget war now. But for the record, immediate threat means there is no time to attempt any other methods to stop an attack from being launched. So how about Saddam Hussein himself and the way he treats his people. First and perhaps most obvious, they are not "his" people. He does not own them. If they do not like him, they can overthrow him. However badly they are living it is not sufficient for the people to take matters into their own hands and remove him. That is what we call self-determination. It is the choice of the people. Of course he represses rebellion. So did President Lincoln. What of it? How do the people actually live? Better than the people who lived under Lenin or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot or who presently live under Mgabe in Zimbabwe or Castro in Cuba. Hussein may purge his enemies in government but he has never purged the people. Iraq is a secular country free of mullahs and religious police. However, of the candidates available to run Iraq, none are any better than Hussein. If we install anyone else to run the country, that is not democracy. He is not a nice guy. There are lots of people who are not nice guys running countries around the world. What has that to do with starting a war? He is in violation of UN resolutions. There are lots of countries around the world which are in violation of UN resolutions. Iraq isn't even a pale third to Israel's first place status. If Bush really wants a war make it Israel first and he will have the entire world supporting him.
Another problem The US will eventually win a war with Iraq. That victory will establish pre-emptive war based upon what might happen in the future as a valid justification. There a dozens of wars waiting to happen for that reason. It is so absurd a basis for war that even the 9/11 attack can be justified. The US might have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq in the future. It justifies Iraq attacking the US right now because the US is likely to attack Iraq in the future. Just because we can get away with it does not make it right or just or even a good idea.
|
|
Page reads: 3785 |