In recent days, boxes of explosives or possibly biological or chemical weapons have been showing up on airplanes, the point of origin of which is allegedly Yemen. There is nothing shocking or surprising about the attempt by presumably Muslims to strike out at the Western World. After all, the U.S. has been conducting a war on terrorism against their chimerical perception of a fanatical enemy Muslims extremists.
Considering the war crimes against Iraq, Afghanistan, the drone attacks against Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, support for the Israelis in their war crimes against the Palestinians and the special op assassination forces ubiquitously targeting possible threats to American security, the expectation and presumption would be that there is a very high probability that this enemy would strike back.
Wherever the American's conduct foreign policy with non-compliant regimes, the conceptual framework for possible action ultimately elicits the use of force. Compromise, bargaining, negotiations and accepting some sacrifices to satisfy all parties is not in the lexicon of the American foreign policy and defense communities.
The unilateral, brutal, disproportionate use of force which violates international law to achieve objectives which exclusively serve American interests provokes a response in kind. The United Nations Charter created an excellent process for resolving differences between nation-states and only authorizes force in Chapter 7, Article 51 which states that: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Examples abound of American use of force under the guise of protecting American security or of a humanitarian intervention when, in fact, the purpose of the mission was to protect or advance U.S. economic or strategic interests.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
