VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:42:46 09/05/02 Thu
Author: Icon
Subject: Can of worms
In reply to: FawnDoo 's message, "Bush, Iraq and a whole can of worms" on 10:10:31 09/05/02 Thu

Wow! Tough one. These are my personal opinions, in somewhat disjointed order.

The US, after the terrible incident of last year, started out by seeming to realise there is a greater political reality than they are used to dealing with, and a whole bunch of people who don't automatically assume that Americans are the "good guys" by default. They were, it was suggested, going to be less insular and "grow up" to their position within the world, being more open to advice and sensitive towards others.

However, they seem to decided that they can best deal with the world by actually reshaping it to suit themselves, then they will sort it out, but on their terms.

Take for example, the US holding facility at Guantanemo Bay(Might be misspelling that). The US should have adhered scrupulously to international law on this, so they could be above reproach from any observer. Instead they view it as their right to do as they please befcause they are the "aggrieved party",

As it is it seems unclear what the people there will be charged with, and as such the US now have a holding facility of dubious legality (And that's the US laws, not the international ones) which can be vilified by any opponent who cares to do so. To critique this is to be automatically assumed to be unpatriotic.

To have the President of the US announce that they are seeking to depose an individual leader until, it is implied, someone they approve of is put in his place, is hardly an act that will stabilise an already volatile situation.

I am in no way defending Sadam Hussein, a genuinely evil man by any accounts, but one who IS the leader of his country, through force or vote is not the option here. And he and the Iraqi politicians are masters of the bluff, double bluff, and political manouvering.

The only clear mandate is what the US now seems to be doing, through force of internal opposition rather than choice, going through the UN, to insist on a return to unobstructed inspections of suspected sites. The existing deal has been swerved around so much it is ineffectual, and should not be used as justification for a war.

And to have Bush, who even his closest allies and friends would agree is not one of God's natural orators, assume the mantle of Winston Churchill in this situation seems just bizarre. Especially when the US was one of the countries which did not heed Churchill's call to arms until they were attacked by a completely different enemy over a year later. But that's by the by.

And on the subject of Prime Ministers Tony Blair may have international savvy and diplomatic skills to spare (Lord knows the US could use some), but he seems to be unaware of the depth of feeling on the home front about the US actions. He seems to be, no matter what you think of his politics, a fundamentally decent man, and all decent men were shocked by 11th September. But all decent men are also shocked by the actions in Israel and Palestine, and the US's stand on those is, not "baffling" because one can see how they got there, but fairly indefensible.

"Those who stand against a tyrant must ensure they have none of the aspects of the tyrant within themselves, or else what is the difference between them?"

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.