Iraq justification - Why not extend this to, say, Zimbabwe?
Discussion
I was listening to someone on Radio 4 this morning (Baroness something, I think) and she was justifying the Iraq war, in fact she still did.
Her justification was that "Despite there being a lot of questions over WMD, Saddam Hussein had to go" (OWTTE) - While that can be argued, if that is the precedent being set, why not extend this to, for example, North Korea - but they certainly have WMDs, so you can't go after them, so why not Zimbabwe?
It's clear that Zimbabwe is suffering, Mugabe is a bit of a tyrant (and probably a bit nuts) so why not use the precedent of Iraq and remove him?
I know I'm over simplifying this and I know that this is a bit of a daft train of thought, but it's a thought that entered my head and sometimes I feel I have to let that thought out....
Her justification was that "Despite there being a lot of questions over WMD, Saddam Hussein had to go" (OWTTE) - While that can be argued, if that is the precedent being set, why not extend this to, for example, North Korea - but they certainly have WMDs, so you can't go after them, so why not Zimbabwe?
It's clear that Zimbabwe is suffering, Mugabe is a bit of a tyrant (and probably a bit nuts) so why not use the precedent of Iraq and remove him?
I know I'm over simplifying this and I know that this is a bit of a daft train of thought, but it's a thought that entered my head and sometimes I feel I have to let that thought out....
You answer the following questions:
Do they have oil?
Can we make lots of money?
If the answers are no, then the invasion is no go.
Simply suggesting that a leader of another country "needs to go" is an unacceptable reason for going to war. As you say, there are plenty of other countries around the world in similar situations yet we don't invade. Quite frankly, who are we, as a nation, to decide the fate of another country in this way?
Do they have oil?
Can we make lots of money?
If the answers are no, then the invasion is no go.
Simply suggesting that a leader of another country "needs to go" is an unacceptable reason for going to war. As you say, there are plenty of other countries around the world in similar situations yet we don't invade. Quite frankly, who are we, as a nation, to decide the fate of another country in this way?
Zimbabwe is of no real concern to anyone except possibly it's former colonial ruler; Mugabe is largely insular, and isn't really threatening anyone outside of his borders, natural resources in the country aren't in demand globally, and what would the replacement do? The country is broken.
North Korea - I don't think anyone will view forced regime change in NK as a good idea when the leader is a) madder than a box of frogs, and b) possibly has CBM if not ICBM capability. Additionally, the whole region is a political nightmare, and the West wading in there would possibly risk a re-run of the last Korean war.
On top of that, the economic and political map has changed since we invaded Iraq - the two great Christian crusaders of Bush and Blair are no longer in power, the British Armed Forces are broke and broken, the US are heavily committed and potentially have a Defense budget shortfall in the coming years.
North Korea - I don't think anyone will view forced regime change in NK as a good idea when the leader is a) madder than a box of frogs, and b) possibly has CBM if not ICBM capability. Additionally, the whole region is a political nightmare, and the West wading in there would possibly risk a re-run of the last Korean war.
On top of that, the economic and political map has changed since we invaded Iraq - the two great Christian crusaders of Bush and Blair are no longer in power, the British Armed Forces are broke and broken, the US are heavily committed and potentially have a Defense budget shortfall in the coming years.
I hear you about oil and not making money - Even when Bush/Blair were in, Zimbabwe was self destructing...
Saying that Hussein had to go is one thing, but getting rid of him and then "finding out that he had no WMDs" seems a tad ridiculous.
Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone, but surely the country's collapse is affecting the whole region - Admittedly it's now too late and too far gone to do anything now anyway. Intervention would have been seen as "imperialist intervention" too.
As for invading North Korea - Cleary that's a madder idea than misunderstanding Welsh
Things have changed, a lot - And I guess that noone is going to want to intervene in such a way ever again, even with evidence.
Saying that Hussein had to go is one thing, but getting rid of him and then "finding out that he had no WMDs" seems a tad ridiculous.
Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone, but surely the country's collapse is affecting the whole region - Admittedly it's now too late and too far gone to do anything now anyway. Intervention would have been seen as "imperialist intervention" too.
As for invading North Korea - Cleary that's a madder idea than misunderstanding Welsh
Things have changed, a lot - And I guess that noone is going to want to intervene in such a way ever again, even with evidence.
there's nothing we want and its not in europe. the only reason we got involved in yugoslavia was because it was a touch close for comfort - compare what was happening and the response to what we did for the rwandans.
its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
shirt said:
there's nothing we want and its not in europe. the only reason we got involved in yugoslavia was because it was a touch close for comfort - compare what was happening and the response to what we did for the rwandans.
its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
Why is it sad?its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
Our entire society is built on the use of the stuff. It would be a bit stupid not to ensure we had access to as much as possibly.
Zimbabwe is Africas problem. The US have no interest in it at all because he doesn't threaten them not can invading it enrich them. Britain would probably like to send the boys in but we can't as the other nations in Africa wouldn't tolerate it because of our colonial baggage. The only people who can really solve the Mugabe issue are the South Africans and Mbeki was very weak in dealing with him. He appears to be revered throughout Africa and none of the other leading nations will move against him.
The only good thing is that he is 85 and will probably die soon.
The only good thing is that he is 85 and will probably die soon.
ETA:
But they're not - they're standing by and letting it happen.
What strikes me as odd is that if the "West" isn't getting involved, surely the stance/opinion should be "Let 'em get on with it" and stop making ridiculous political statements that can't be backed up. Especially as the "West" seems to be doing exactly that anyway.
What would have happened if Hussein had been left to get on with it? Would the UN have intervened - would they have said "Stop - or I'll say Stop again"...
unrepentant said:
The only good thing is that he is 85 and will probably die soon.
That's unlikely - Mugabe seems to be akin to Highlander...Lefty Guns said:
james_tigerwoods said:
Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone, but surely the country's collapse is affecting the whole region
So let their neighbours sort it out (if they want to). What strikes me as odd is that if the "West" isn't getting involved, surely the stance/opinion should be "Let 'em get on with it" and stop making ridiculous political statements that can't be backed up. Especially as the "West" seems to be doing exactly that anyway.
What would have happened if Hussein had been left to get on with it? Would the UN have intervened - would they have said "Stop - or I'll say Stop again"...
Edited by james_tigerwoods on Friday 19th June 11:10
rich1231 said:
shirt said:
there's nothing we want and its not in europe. the only reason we got involved in yugoslavia was because it was a touch close for comfort - compare what was happening and the response to what we did for the rwandans.
its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
Why is it sad?its a sad state of affairs but we only went for the oil. big story in last week's times about how the oil co.s are lining up for the rush - china paying $5bn for speculation rights etc.
Our entire society is built on the use of the stuff. It would be a bit stupid not to ensure we had access to as much as possibly.
plus, at at an estimated $1trillion+ for the war, its fecking expensive oil.
But if we (the US and UK or "The West" or whatever) have no interests there, why would we get involved? We have no investment there, no business there, precious few (if any) countrymen there. It's not as if getting rid of that ape Mugabe will change any of that - they've still got eff-all that we would be interested in.
IIRC it's mostly farming and some mineral mining. How much of those mineral deposits are left I have no idea.
IMHO it's not our problem. They wanted independance, they got it. Let them get on with it.
IIRC it's mostly farming and some mineral mining. How much of those mineral deposits are left I have no idea.
IMHO it's not our problem. They wanted independance, they got it. Let them get on with it.
Currently, the international criminal court have issued a warrant for the president of another African country..President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, which is, arguably, more important than Zimbabwe in both it`s oil & mineral assets & geopolitically.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7887007.st...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7887007.st...
Edited by FM on Friday 19th June 11:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff