The eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 atrocities has passed, with much ink and TV time spent on the matter.
What hasn't been discussed enough, and needs to be repeated to "patriots" in the U.S. until it sinks into their consciousness, is how the intense outpouring of good will and sympathy that followed the attack on the World Trade Center was squandered by the Bush White House.
Practically the whole world - the non-Muslim world, at least - was as unified as one could reasonably expect it to be in its reaction to the attacks.
Team Bush could have built on that. Instead it insisted on not just retaliating against al-Qaida and the country that harboured its leadership, but engaging in a full-blown occupation that continues to this day.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it plunged headlong into making a phony case for invading a country that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. Then it went ahead and invaded and occupied that country as well.
I've come across many assertions since the 2003 Iraq incursion that it wasn't illegal.
Rather than spending a whole lot of time and effort writing a case for how stupid those assertions are, I'll briefly point to a few things the Bush apologists ought to think about.
In the weeks preceding the invasion, other countries pointed out at the United Nations that the U.S./British case for invading Iraq lacked legal foundation and said weapons inspection should be allowed to continue. Regardless, the invasion was launched in defiance of the UN.
In 2004, the UN's highest-ranking official bluntly told the BBC that the invasion violated the UN charter.
A Counterpunch essay details ways in which the Iraq War may reasonably be considered "completely illegal, according to the existing body of international law regarding military interventions."
Finally, Gwynne Dyer skewered the "moral case for invading Iraq" a year after the invasion. It's possibly Dyer's best column ever.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
There are abundant truths brimming from this post, Stimpson, and I applaud you for that! The Bush crew pissed away all sympathy for and good will toward the United States the moment they stepped foot in Iraq. Subsequently, they made matters even worse through the employment of rendition and torture and the imposition of a new government there.
Worst of all, though, it and its cynical far-right-wing followers continue to make a cause celebre of 9/11 and still attempt to use it for political gain. While Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is indeed something to be watched and dealt with, this obsession with 9/11 is unhealthy and insane. We MUST put it behind us, just as we did with Pearl Harbor in a far shorter amount of time.
Stimson, thanks for your visit and comments at Politics Plus. I've added you to my blog roll. This is a very well done article , and I fully agree that the Bush/GOP war for Oil and Conquest was a violation of international and US law.
Thanks for the kind comments, Jack and TomCat. It's time for me to add you both to my blogroll.
Cheers,
Stimpson
Thank you greatly! :-)
Thank you, Stimpson! You are a gentleman and a scholar!
Daniel Bacher's article which is linked, mentions UN Resolution 687, which formally ended Gulf War I. I wish I had had that arrow in my quiver when I had an extensive and intensive fight with a tough conservative on my blog who was contending the Bush II's invasion was just a continuation of Bush I's invasion.
I don't think Bacher stresses hardly enough that it is jus ad bellum which was the 1st Nuremberg Principle dealing with war-starters.
Finally, Bacher mentions the invasion of Iraq occurred with many Democrats serving as door mats for the GOP.
Vigil: From what I read of that first post to which you link, it would appear said conservative lacked focus in his contributions to the discussions. And by "lacked focus" I mean he "talked a lot of shit that was utterly irrelevant." Reminded me of another conservative at your blog a few weeks ago, discussing health care.
Sometimes we really just have to be direct and succinct. In Letters to a Young Contrarian, Christopher Hitchens tells of how he would sometimes cut off discussion on the fatwah against Salman Rushdie by asking (paraphrasing) "Do you think it's OK for a government to call for the murder of another country's citizen?" If there was any hedging in the response, he knew he was speaking with someone not worthy of his time. Similar thing here: Do you think it's OK for a country to flout the UN charter and the will of the UN by invading a country that poses no immediate threat? The answer should be an immediate NO. (Yes, I realize there's some irony in citing Hitchens here.)
One problem with many, perhaps all, Bush apologists is that they believe the U.S. is above rules that other countries must follow. I think "American exceptionalism" is the term for this principle, and it's easily proven morally worthless by asking oneself how one would feel if it were applied to other countries (say, Venezuela and Sudan).
Another problem is that some actually believe there's no such thing as international law since it couldn't be enforced by cops of some sort. I must say I was speechless when I first encountered this argument. Speechless because I would hardly expect a rational person to argue that a law doesn't exist if the cops aren't there to enforce it. The argument is simply breathtaking in its depravity.
Now, I hope my polical-minded readers will forgive me for the departure in my next 3 posts, which are whimsical in nature.
I guess I should have typed "imminent threat". Whatever.
Excellent observations, Stimson. As always!
Post a Comment