Let me first say this: I quoted that particular article to show the strength of anti-war sentiment in Australia, despite the fact that our Prime Minister has already shipped troops out to support the US in the event of war. That does not mean that I automatically agree with every statement made in the article.
My personal view is that war is not justified even with UN approval, and while I question the USís motives, I would not go so far as to label the country ërogueí.
I do have to ask one question, though. Given the US’s repeated threats to start a war with or without UN approval, how can anyone be surprised that some people would regard the US as a rogue state if it chose to act unilaterally?
Jay accused me of not looking at the situation objectively. Well, no one can truly objective, but I think I have considered all the facts at hand before forming my opinion.
A fair question to ask is whether UN approval would make the US’s warlike and aggressive actions any less aggressive and warlike?
Don’t get me wrong; Saddam Hussain is an evil prick, but…
Many other countries (including the US) are in breach of UN rulings. Many other countries (including the US) are reported to have stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons, although they deny it. Many other countries (including the US) are guilty of human rights abuses. Many other countries have dictators, some of which the US continues to support.
That being the case, why single Iraq out for punitive action?
Itís debatable whether Iraq poses a real and imminent danger to the US. There is no real evidence linking al-Qaeda and Iraq (it’s been called “tangential at best”). Even the Blix report states that weapons inspectors cannot, at this stage, conclusively prove that Iraq has nuclear and chemical weapon stockpiles. At the very least, that should mean that the weapons inspectors be given more time.
So, does war against Iraq benefit the world-at-large (as Bush has been trying to convince us)? I think not. So we need to look at other motives for war:
- Fear? That’s a biggie, particularly after Sept 11. But you’ve already gone after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Surely the US doesn’t believe that every Muslim nation is a threat?
- Oil? Call me cynical, but that is a major reason for the US’s historical interest in the Middle East and I believe it is a major factor now.
- Power? Now, let’s see. If we add an occupied Iraq with a ‘safe’ leader to our new ‘safe’ leader in occupied Afghanistan… and what do we get? Oh, TWO countries in the Middle East under US control! Do they have oil or convenient trade routes for oil?
War in Iraq will NOT improve security in the Middle East. Quite the opposite, in fact. It will be a destabilising force, and not only in the Middle East. Other Muslim nations (in South East Asia for instance) have already gone on the record that they fear that their populations would be ‘extremitised’ as many see a attack against Iraq as an attack against Islam.
And even if the US invades Iraq and deposes Saddam without creating even more division, fear and anti-US sentiment, what would they do next? Can you blame other Middle Eastern countries who wonder who would be next on the ëhit-listí?
So, those are my major reasons for being anti-war.
Now, letís move on to other matters. I never intended this to be a blog containing political commentary (other than my occasional size politics post), and I do not intend it to become so now. That being said, I do not regret my previous posts, although I do regret that they have offended a blogger I respect and enjoy reading.
Cíest la vie.