Harmon L. Taylor (Dallas, Texas)
What Law justified the Invasion in the first place?
Thu Apr 10 13:48:56 2003
63.185.113.105

The point is well raised, and perhaps the largest single confusion on this particular aspect of the matter has been the (false) presumption that this is a wholly "public" war. If we analyze this as a "public" war, we find nothing that justifies it except the initial propaganda, a lot of which has since been proven and exposed as false.

To see the aspects of this that are of the nature of a "private" war may help explain (at least in large part) the basis for the military action in the first place. And, once we "see" that the players here ARE private entities supported by private, mercenary forces, we then realize that there may very well be "justifications" that could never be publically disclosed without pulling the rag off the bush (so to speak) that we're really dealing with a "private" war.

Without going into a lot of details, here's another avenue of analysis and perspective. What if Hussein isn't really the problem or the issue here (in the eyes of the aggressors), but rather a successor of his? What if there really was the development of a coup planned that could have toppled Hussein and turned the governmental authority over to the influence of an individual or group that really wasn't interested in playing ball with the Internationalists? THEN, the "intervention" would have been "preventative," fully recognized from a view of the Law of Necessity, in that the interests at risk, or at stake, or of focus, would then be within the "authority" of the Internationalists to affect, in a preventative mode, rather than in a curative mode. Oil may very well be an issue, as may the "currency" of those oil transactions. Another factor at issue is the control of the shipping lanes in and out of that particular canal, and there are all kinds of things that get shipped into and out of that part of the world through that canal.

Harmon L. Taylor