2. National Security
3. US economic imperialism and other Friskisms.
4. Political Expediency
1. Hmm. The oil arguement is all very impressive and tempting, god knows the US admin knows a thing or two about it,
But it would be ten times easier to simply take oil from Saddam and brush the human rights problems under the carpet (a la Saudi Arabia, and most of the gulf states, not too mention Latin America) than to actually expend the amount of effort that Bush has done to get Saddam out.
The oil arguement simply does not make sense- Much as I would like to tar the Bush admin with more corruption, and self interest.
2. National Security.
Almost a joke really, Bush has barely begun to make his case:
- Connection with terror?
But that said no doubt Iraq would act in the same way as Syria and other rogue states and happily support their main enemy. My enemies enemy is my friend is one that always holds up at the extremes of geopolitics.
3. US economic imperialism.
Not to go against Frisk totally, but he is the classic overly educated liberal. Regardless of the arguements for and against, he will act against action, and against any hegemonic authority. And imperialism? Does not seem to make sense imeadiately, but then who knows with Bush and a US with an aching self esteem.
4. Political Expediancy.
The domestic pressure for Bush to give the war against "terror" a human face, and a nation state against which to use the US's strength must be immense. And so there was Iraq...?
There is no clear answer, but it should be recognised that what is required is more than simply shouting "its de oil, its de oil". God knows what it is, but the opposition must not resort to as arguments just as unsound as the Bush/Blair coalition.
And if you want to hear a fantastic speech against it, check out http://www.publicati...30318-32_spnew0
And as always also have a look at: http://www.bushisms.com
the leader of the free world. God bless.
Regarding democracy, well no, no one pretends it is perfect but
q. Who would you prefer to have the might that is wielded by America?
George Bush, inept, inarticulate as he is?
Zhang Zemin/ Li Peng of China?
Anyone with the sort of power that the US has will always wield it, given that, we should count ourselves lucky that the world is as it is, and the US tries to at least keep the appearance of acting benignly. The alternative is a lot worse.