Since we have managed to throw in religions, terrorism, democracies and dictators, criticism of political standings, camel-mounted lunatics (on the previous Iran thread) etc. please allow me to throw in my 2 cents (or perhaps 42).
I would also ask for forgiveness if I manage to screw up the use of your language at any point, but, as a lot of you know, English is not my first language.
Ok, here goes!
I would like to throw in a couple of more elements into the current discussion, namely international laws and credibility:
It is tempting to say that the U.S. (foreign policy) has recently been worried by international treaties.
In fact, as long as global rules and institutions helped it's own interests, the U.S. was happy to go along with them.
It now seems that the rules that were intended to constrain others became constraining for their "creators".
It looks like the pendulum "swung" back.
It also seems to have done so moreso under the current president, given that George Bush Snr. was quite keen on the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the World Court) and considered it a "central" and "indispensable" element of an international legal order.
Just for the record, in virtually every other country in the world, an international treaty or convention, once ratified, overrides domestic law.
Apparently not so in the U.S.
Given the obvious disregard for International laws, rules and/or institutions etc. as and when it suits the U.S., it doesn't come as any surprise that many countries choose to abstain from any participation in interventions whatsoever.
On the subject of Terrorism, it seems arrogant, to say the least, to assume and expect various countries would suddenly rally to the notion of opening up their own resources (including military forces) to be "available".
I would think that one would at least examine the issue of credibility in which it would seem that U.S. foreign policy is somewhat lacking.
A foremost example would be the recent invasion of another sovereign country based on non-existent WMD.
Whether this was based on "bad intel" (which I very much doubt), or was intentional is somewhat irrelevant, in terms of credibility.
For the record, I have various examples closer to home, some of which I have written about on this board, over the past couple of years.
So what's the fuss all about?
OK, here's my take (although we have touched on this before on this board).
IT'S JUST BUSINESS!
It is designed to fit with U.S. (and possibly others') foreign policy and national (and probably corporate) interests only.
Nothing to do with democracies or religions.
Very thinly veiled excuses are wrung (sp?) to death in order to justify interventions and/or invasions, all in the name of "democracy" and/or "threat".
Parata mas! (explanation of these 2 Greek words to follow).
If you get to speak to Iraqui refugies, including those that were anti-Saddam Christians (and I can supply a few that live here) you will find they feel that their country is in worse turmoil than ever before. The feeling is that their country is bordering on civil war.
So, in my book it is all about controlling resources and markets.
Interestingly, I offer the following excerpt from a CHEVRON advertisement I read today in a magazine:
____________________________________________________________________
The heading:-
RUSSIA, IRAN AND QATAR HAVE 58% OF THE WORLD'S NATURAL GAS RESERVES.
THE U.S. HAS 3%.
So what does that mean for us?
End of heading.
The excerpt:-
So, what needs to be done? On the supply side, producing nations need policies that allow for efficient development of their natural gas in an open, stable business environment, not one in which the rules of the game change without warning.
The governments of consuming nations, on the other hand, must enact long-term policies (my note: INVADE perhaps?) to encourage such development and to ensure they'll have adequate supplies in the future.
End of excerpt.
___________________________________________________________________
Again I say "Parata mas! (as I said, explanation to follow)".
I find it ironic that we get bogged down in debates, theories and assesments when we can just read the adverts.
They seem to be to the point and tell me a lot.
OK, historically speaking, we have always had a superpower looking after it's own interests and, within that scope, I can understand the motives and strategy.
Also within that context I also say "fair enough".
So, what is next?
We'll probably see the populations of the world get used to the idea of IRAN being invaded soon and then we'll move on to Syria (or wherever the pipelines go).
On the issue of dicatators:-
Since when has U.S. foreign policy shied away from dealing with, supporting or even instigating dictatorships which serve it's interests (believe me, I lived through a US-backed one here, 1967-1974)?
I also notice U.S. foreign policy is back in bed with Qaddafi in Lybia.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is?
A dictator AND a terrorist.
"Parata mas! (ah ... those Greek words again)"
Back on the subject of terrorism and the events of 9/11, I very sorrowfully say "welcome to the club".
Some countries (including my own), have been dealing with terrorism related issues (attacks etc.) for at least 3 decades.
I would suggest it is dealt with as best as possible, without the government waving it in the faces of the U.S. population all the time.
We in Greece had this tactic used on us from our own government, using the "threat from the east" (namely the threat from Turkey) for decades until the people finally told our politicians to "get lost".
The population's "tactic" worked wonders!
By the way, it is the threats you don't receive you need to worry about (similar to 9/11), rather than the ones you do.
So, in concluding, I again say it's JUST BUSINESS! (which is also why I touched on the subjects of international law and credibility).
Not religion (not the Bible nor the Koran), Not dictatorships, Not terrorism, Not WMD.
Not Liberals, Not conservatives, (these standings mean nothing to me, given the subject).
Not the black, the white, the red, the brown or the yellow!
Also, I would agree wholeheartedly with Saxtron's post on the other Iran thread and would NOT waste his son ... NOT for the sake of BUSINESS!
I will now take my leave, change my username and kill the camel that came with it.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, "Parata mas" in Greek means ... Give us a break!
