Christine

Visions Of Life
2003-03-30 01:30:30 (UTC)

Resolution 1441

Resolution 1441 did not call for an automatic use of
forse, and the United Sates and Great Britain understood
this fully. They needed a second resolution to give any
military intervention legitimacy, as it would be carried
under the auspices of the UN.

This was is not about resolutions. It is not about
liberation.

It's about oil.

First of all, the thought that we must liberate the people
of Iraq is an intrinsically arrogant one. You assume the
people of Iraq are not 'sophisticated' enough to carry out
this feat on their own. Perhaps if we were to releive the
sanctions we placed upon civillian population after the
Gulf War, their daily thoughts could turn from simple
subsistence to other things, such as the state of their
nation and democratic reformation.

Also, with the sanctions we have actually strengthened
Saddam's stranglehold on the Iraqi population by forcing
them to the rely on the government they despise for daily
rations of food.

After the Gulf War, a resistance began to arise in
Southern Iraq by the majority of Iraq, the Shi'ite
Muslims. They were actually able to secure the southern
portions of Iraq, in hopes that the US would offer support
for their struggle as they had so often hinted at
throughout their entire campaign at the region. Instead,
they left them to be slaughtered by Iraq's military. The
fear of the Bush administration was that if the Shi'ites
were to hold power in Iraq, it would probably be worse
than Saddam's Baath socialist party, which was comprised
of Sunni Muslims. They believed it worse, because the
leadership and revolutionary forces of Iran were Shi'ites
themselves, and they were seen to pose a threat to the
United States.

Now, how can the US propose to bring democracy to a nation
like a Iraq where the majority of it's citizens are
Shi'ite Muslims, the same group which comprises another
faction of the United States so called 'axis of evil',
namely, Iran?

Now, if Saddam poses as serious a threat to his neighbors
and the rest of the world, then have each of his neighbors
formally denounced the US led invasion on Iraq? Would they
not be the first to call for his head in hopes for peace
in the region? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that
Saddam was at his most powerful through the 80's in his
war with Iran, while being backed financially and
militarily by the United States? 2 wars later and 12 years
of economic sanctions does not translate into a increased
threat.

The issue at hand in this invasion is namely one of oil.
Not the consumption of it, however. The United States has
enough oil coming from Venezuela, Canada, the United
States itself and other middle eastern nations - it
doesn't need to use this oil, but to control it. Jimmy
Carter said in 1980 that the US's future lay in the middle
East, and because of that, so does it's economy. He even
suggested military force if necessary. This has served as
a blueprint for US foreign policy in that region, as many
of the members of Bush's administration now served back
then and outlined similar goals, namely Dick Cheney.

It's important to remember this would not be an isolated
event. The Prime Minister of Iran was disposed by the US
because of his attempts to nationalize Iran's oil
reserves. The US quickly overthrew him and istalled the
Shah, seeing the nationalization of Iran's oil as a step
towards communism and economic isolation.

The US's involvement in the region has not been one of
exporting democratic values but just the opposite, of
surpressing them. By supporting some of the most
disgusting regimes in history they have brewed a culture
of contempt for them and their policies. Look at their
suport of Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive
religious extremist regimes outside of the Taliban.