THE BUSH DOCTRINE AT FACE VALUE ------------------------------- The problem at face value for long time dictator Saddam Hussein, is obviously the Iraqi regime he commands, for which continually defies UN resolutions. The only response therefore, by the international community and all those of sound mind, would be the direct enforcement of these resolutions. The United States in its declaration of policing the world, appears that it is in an almost mandatory position through the statutes of morality to use military strength where diplomacy has failed. The problem in this Utopian scenario, is that reality does not appear to reflect the spiels endorsing the morality; known to some as the Bush doctrine. The US is in vast contradiction of its actions contrasted to the media spin it uses to affirm support of its own domestic population, and the international community at large. The Bush doctrine would serve well to define its statement of international law enforcement, by defining what it meant in a declaration that the US would not be held accountable by the International Criminal Courts (ICC). It takes a position of that, the international community cannot hold the US accountable nor responsible for its actions. At the same time, the US spins that it is only trying to enforce international law, [order and stability] through military action. The media spin, Bush tells the public, that national regimes exemplified by Iraq, show human rights abuses, for which the US must act to expel its dictator. It tells us also of it's ally Israel, but barely plays mention to the facts that Israel during this same period of time, has denied the UN access for the actions it takes against Palestine. There have also been declarations that Israel has performed human rights abuses in its war against Palestine. For these reasons alone, the Bush doctrine would seem to apply. It seems unlikely, that Bush would declare war on a long time military nuclear ally, occupying in part the Middle East region. These are startling conflicts of interest between the US spun distortion on reality, and reality itself. They are not indicative of an unbiased US, or an unbiased doctrine that Bush wishes to portray. It is in many ways the pure inconsistencies in application and establishment of the Bush doctrine, that brings us to question the morality of an administration seeking to follow a uni-lateral military conquest, on any country of it choosing. It is not the fact that the US seeks what it claims to be liberation, but the fact that only the US defines what is to be 'liberated', and who are to be 'liberated'. It is certainly not based on the morality of consistency, or an unbiased media representation. Nor is it based on the liberties of the domestic population it holds. These now have been seemingly un-liberated through police-state style, and unarguably highly questionable restrictions on civil liberties. I suppose the question remaining.. Do you love your country so much, that you are willing to fight for an administration that can't stay consistent in its action, and heart tugging cries for military support? This author prefers to fight for his country. Not for the media, not for an administration, and certainly not for the Bush doctrine. -- Silvio Cesare