It is really funny how you try to make sense of the world and it just doesn’t add up. A lot of things that should ordinarily be are out of place and a lot of things that shouldn’t be the way they are allowed to stand to please some people and people with common sense are appalled.
A discourse on Iraq is an over flogged issue. However, the reverberation around the world is enough to drive sane people to seek workable solutions. I have been thinking about something for a few weeks now.
The United States of America invaded Iraq going against all international norms, conventions and rules of engagement, also not forgetting the UN was not in support of the war from the beginning.
America allegedly invaded Iraq because they were suspected of having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Overtime, that reason was found to be untrue. Even if Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction, did Saddam Hussein leave anybody in doubt that he had the capability and the will to launch an attack against any country? Though, the invasion was later being justified because Saddam was a monster who was killing/terrorizing his own people. Was he the only one who killed/terrorized his people? There are lots of other countries where their leaders are disconnected from the people and they are terrors to their own citizens.
The fact which is out there on the table is that President Bush sanctioned the invasion of Iraq and is a very good candidate for the International Criminal Court in the Hague. A lot of people have been killed, maimed and millions of people will never return to normalcy.
What more does the ICC need to prosecute the former President of the USA?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
3 comments:
You definitely raise some interesting points but legally, the ICC will never go there.
First off, although it was wrong for the US to proactively attack Iraq, they did have some support from certain countries hence the term 'Coalition of the Willing'.
As for Afghanisatan, legally, an argument can be made that since the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and that Taliban harbored Al Qaeda, they were pretty much ripe for attack.
As someone who lived blocks from the White House, a couple miles from the attacked Pentagon, and previously worked down the street from the World Trade Center, I understand why there was a 'sense' of revenge post 9/11. I am not condoning some of the erroneous decisions that were made by the previous administration, and I think history will write that story in a way that doesn't favor George W. Bush. But, I don't think the ICC will ever try to charge Bush.
Nice post, though. I enjoyed reading it and hope you will update soon.
NIGERIAN CURIOSITY
IT WAS SO MUCH EASIER WHEN I ONLY HAD ONE...
thank you SOLOMONSYDELLE for the comment. Appreciated. I really dont think that the ICC will ever try to charge Bush. His fate is left to history as u rightly said. Sometimes, the world just doesnt make sense.
I understand some of the circumstances that led to the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. However, two wrongs don't make a right...
On third/fourth thots, I dont even knw what to say again...In Yoruba parlance, an appropriate description of the matter is "isu ata, yanyan" meaning "yam pepper,scatter scatter". While the Islamic Extremists can try to make make a case of exploitation from the US, so also can the US defend itself from such accusations...Its just a crazy world...Unfortunately, it is those unknown soldiers, men and women whose families bear the brunt of the rash decisions taken by the Commander-in-Chiefs that I cross my heart for.
Post a Comment