My email argument against unilateral US action

I have had discussions on this coming military exercise before with
various people.

A problem with Carol's view that this is not a new war but simply the
US enforcing violations of the cease-fire / truce /peace treay is that
technically the US and Iraq were not at war in the Gulf War.

Whaaaa you ask, it was in all the papers?

No, the UN was at war and the US was simply the major military
provider. The truce / peace treaty was signed between Iraq and the UN
and the UN has responsibility for it. The Security Council is the ONLY
authority that is authorized to enforce the provisions of the peace
treaty. The wording, on all the Iraq resolutions since the Gulf War
continue to follow this language - that the matter continues to be
held by the Security Council and by the UN charter no nation my take
action.

So, if the US wants to do anything about Iraq or Saddam it needs to go
through the Security Council or be in violation of the treaty
commitments we have signed and that have the force of law.by the US
constitution.

Now, as a practical matter the current US administration could get a
Kzinti's ass about the UN except when it serves public relations
purposes. As demonstrated repeatedly in my view, they have no
respect for the constitution or laws or legal precedents or anything
that is generally referred to as the rule of law.

Why is the US proceeding in this way then?

Their vision for this century - assert a new global empire and
establish a Pax Americana.

During the Clinton years, prominent members of this administration
developed policies both foreign and domestic that they are eager to
put into effect. Developers of this unified policy include Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Jeb Bush, and many other prominent Republicans.

Domestically they envision an extremely powerful central government
primarily concerned with security, protecting major business interests
and creating a state guided by "Christian principles."

On the foreign front, they seek to assert a principal of unilateral
preemptive US action protecting US interests around the globe. They
plan to station extremely strong military legions at all strategic
locations around the world. One of the clearly stated policies is to
prevent any other power, or alignment of powers, from contesting US
hegemony. One aspect of this is for the US to remain massively
preeminent in military power.

The happy goal of these policies is world peace lead by a strong
"moral" America, maintained by America, and establishing a world that
is run on good ol' American law, values and principles.

Documentation and the clear foreign policy plan can be found at the
conservative republican think tank "Project for a New American
Century" with related material at other conservative non-profit
institutions. Most of this was developed by the current
administration or their advisors. The official foreign policy plan of
the US published last year is also pretty much a copy of the year 2000
PNAC plan.

Myself, I think there should be public debate about the new US role
for this century. I don't think I like many aspects of this vision.

This was probably too long and obNiven just to say I disagree with
Carol, Saddam should be gotten rid of, he is evil, but through the
United Nations and the rule of law.

This was on the Larry Niven mailing list.

Gary "I supported the Rebel Alliance over the Galactic Empire" Denton