Reply
Fri 25 Jul, 2003 01:14 pm
Now that many Americans are accepting the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian gesture and do not see the need for a valid casus belli I wonder how many other invasions can be justified.
The criteria is simple, you decide whether the leader of a nation has to go. No legal basis is needed. You simply have to declare them to be a "bad-guy".
You get bonus points for an appeal to pity. If the leader you have arbitrarily decided to be a "bad-guy" presides over a nation that has a suffering people you get to invade them.
You get even more bonus points for picking on leaders who were not democratically elected. In fact if you want you can decide to invade any nation you want under the pretext of "bringing democracy".
You can also play the terrorism card. If a nation has ever had a terrorist within their borders you are allowed to invade (this is kinda like a "wild" card, even the US has had terrorists operate from our territory so this one opens up a nice pretext for anyone you want to invade).
So, how many non-democratic nations are there?
How many embattled leaders?
How much suffering?
Did you say they have terrorists?
I like the brave new world. We can invade anything under the weakest of pretexts.
"Where there is misery, where there is a lack of democracy, where there is a leader that can be termed a 'bad-guy' and where there are terrorists there is a pretext for you to invade and tend to your nation's interests."
I propose an invasion of Saudi Arabia. I cite as my pretext the need for democracy and the terrorist wild card.
I propose an invasion of China. I cite the democracy and the appeal to pity cards. There are other available pretexts of course.
This is too easy, every nation on earth can somehow fit the bill. I propose Switzerland for "complicity" in terrorism (due to teh banking system).
BTW, if you pick on a leader with a mustache you get extra special points.
What if it's a female leader with a mustache?
Damn, I hadn't thought of that. Female leaders need two pretexts. They are harder to villify in a media campaign.
Like i stated in another thread, (quoting The New Statesman)
...It is not good enough to say that everything turned out for the best, that a brutal tyrant was overthrown, that his equally nasty sons are now dead and that the Iraqi people rejoice. The armed forces are not a branch of Amnesty International; there is no international legal framework for disposing of tyrants, and the British and US governments do nothing to encourage one. The military is supposed to defend national interests; that is the basis on which parliament votes the money. If western interests are under as severe and constant a threat as US and British rulers say they are, military planning, resources and lives have been wasted on the wrong target. The chiefs of the UK defence staff constantly complain about overstretch. The US army has 33 combat brigades; 16 are now in Iraq. The war and the continuing occupation of Iraq are serious misuses of public money. Those are the grounds for inquiries and investigations!...
Uhhh...I think it is best to limit choices to countries that have a marginal capacity to retaliate.
China should be taken off on that account.
Quite right Frank, but the pretext is there for those who want it. I never said taking up these pretexts is not foolhardy.
canada, they support sodomy, they have oil, um and some of them speak french.
Quite right dys, their people are in need of liberation from the regime.
But you need to call Chrétien a "bad-guy" first. Then you have your pretext.
I'm in the mood to invade Venezuela. Chavez is a "bad-guy" ( he wears a beret). For now I'll put these plans on hold (since he is being nice with his oil) but if that ever stops I'll call for regime change.
let's invade iraq, bremer is a bad guy, the people are suffering there, he is not elected democratically and iraq is the mother of all terrorists-containing countries.
owi, that was very funny. I think you deserve an "invade two countries for free" card.
"Hooray for me! Hooray for Zoidberg!"
Just don't do your "manly display".
I've learned the leader of California has made a mess of his state. And its the same size of Iraq (that cant be a coincidence)
And there is already a new wanabee-leader with an exceptional record of killing bad guys. He has killed more than 400
people in his three-decade career!
What are we waiting for? Chaaaarge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Um, frolic.
We can't invade ourselves. We have a "block all invasion pretexts" card.
He warn't talkin' 'bout invadin' ourselves, he war talkin' 'bout invadin' them there feriners in Callyfornia . . .
Hmm, tough to pull off. The leader is indeed embattled but I think a mustache might be needed to put it over the edge.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace