|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Looking for answers | by colmtourque | 2003-03-07 12:22:30 |
| Tomo already said it eloquently, but I would like |
by LurkerMo |
2003-03-07 14:41:11 |
to add:
2. If possession of WMD is a good reason for US to invade a country, then Germany, France, England and others have reason to be nervous and, rather than support US should fight it wherever and whenever they can.
3,4. The agreement that Iraq is supposed to be in violation of is with the UN, not the US. If Bush feels obligated to enforce UN agreements, why choose this one? Couldn't be because of oil, could it?
5. When the US originally started the war on terrorism, it achieved international consent to invade Afghanistan, because it could prove that Osama was given refuge there. This consent even extended to replacing the legal government there.
No, the government of Afghanistan was not a democratically elected one, but it was the internationally recognized de facto government. The justification for removing it was its sheltering of Osama. If Bush now wants the US to remove other governments, then what government can feel safe? The specious reason that Saddam supports terrorists could be applied to many other governments, but Bush singled out Iraq. Couldn't be because they have oil, could it?
Another supporting justification for moving against Iraq that Bush has used often (hoping to persuade people that it really is not such a bad thing for US to invade Iraq) is the human rights violations that Saddam's regime has committed. If this is cause for invasion, then many other countries should have been dealt with first, such as Uganda.
Maybe it is the combination of WMD and human rights violations and support of terrorism in general that is required to justify US invasion of another sovereign state. When Bush had the world's sympathy and assistance immediately after 9/11 he did not specify these 'causes' - only the 'war on terrorism'. If it is Osama Bin Laden that he is specifically targeting, then he should be invading Pakistan (if his intelligence organizations are to be believed). He does not seem to be prepared to do so right now. Maybe it is the oil?
As far as possession of natural resources, an ability to be a threat to the US, and human rights violations are concerned, I can easily see Canada as a target for US aggression in the near future. So why do you think I find it difficult to support the US invasion of Iraq?
It's not because I support Saddam's human rights violations.
It's not because I support terrorism.
It's not because I don't want peace in this world.
It's because Bush has changed the rules for this 'war on terrorism' that he started, and clearly shown that no country can truly feel safe from US aggression. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Ahem | by Adiplomat | 2003-03-07 14:58:28 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
