Re: The Bush Regime
HueyPilot said:
So I really don't see what parallel you're trying to make here. Where is it?
Given what you posted in response, it is evident that you don't see the parallel. I was not comparing the President of the United States to the President of Iraq. Such comparison is not possible and even I know that.
I
was comparing the invasion and occupation of one soverign nation by another. The principle is quite basic and has little if anything to do with one's political party affiliation.
The basic tenet of democracy is self-determination. Only the "people" of a particular nation-state have the "right" to remove its government when they do not "like" its policies. There are two methods by which this may be accomplished: 1) Through the ballot, 2) By revolution/ civil war. Both are an internal processes and do not include invasion and occupation by a foreign nation.
One cannot logically subvert democracy as a means by which to install demoracy. That's an oxymoron.
The United States is currently
imposing its will upon the people of Iraq by military force and against their collective will.
I do not doubt that the majority of them are satisfied with the fall of Saddam Hussein. That however, is not the point. It is obvious that they are NOT satisfied with the invasion of their country or its occupation by military force. If they were, there would be no resistance, no insurgency. They are not fighting to return Hussein, they are fighting to remove America. All of them are not fighting because all of them can't. Enough are to make it clear that they do not want this occupation and the invaders are not welcom.
If the United States were invaded and occupied by a foreign power, I would hope that we Americans would remember the words of Winston Churchill and act accordingly.
""We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
We found those words praiseworthy when they were uttered and have virtually enshrined their author. Why is it that we find this acceptable when said by an Englishman, but find it unusual when practiced by and Iraqi? Freedom is a state of mind among a people. It is not a buzz word whose definition may be written or dictated by foreigners.
It may satisfy our egos as Americans to believe that we have "liberated" Iraq and declare them "free". Free from Saddam Hussein they are. Free from us they are not.
What is really important is not what we think we have done, it is what the Iraqi people think we have done. They may very well have hated Sadam Hussein (who was everything you've said and more),
the problem is they now hate us more.
In 1920 (circa) Great Britain "occupied" a region called Iraq (as a consequence of WWI) which had previously been "occupied" by yet another "foreign" power. Their "occupation" continued until after the second world war. They attempted to establish the British brand of democracy and even empolyed chemical weapons against civilians (cilling them by the thousands) in the effort to subdue the resistance. They were not successful and ultimately abandoned the effort (circa 1947).
In 1948, the British gave up their occupation of Palestine and transferred it to a people who "claimed" it was their's, creating a new nation called "Israel". Ever since, the people who lived there have resisted what they consider to be the "occupation" of their lands by the Zionists. They have resisted that occupation by whatever means is available to them, in the face of vastly superior military power, for 56 years with no end in sight. We now call them "terrorists", just as we call the Iraqi insurgents terrorists.
Again, my point is that what "WE" think about it or what the British think about it is irrelevant. The fact is the occupation continues by military force and it is being resisted.
Are you prepared to keep more than 100,000 American military in Iraq for the next 50 years in an effort to impose our style of life on a people that do not want it? Do you believe that such an effort is going to bring "stability" to the region? Are you satisfied with counting the body-bags of American boys for the next fifty years as a consequence of Bush's application of foreign policy?
You are correct, Bush will be gone no later than 2008. Does that mean that we must endure the consequences of this error for at least that long? Perhaps you are willing or even eager to do so, I am not.
Fortunately for me as an American, I do not have to exercise the option of revolution or civil war to change the policy of my government. All I have to do is exercise the power of the ballot and remove the people who support this policy of preemptive war from office. Hopefully, enough of my fellow citizens will use that option as well.
I support the war against terrorism and I would like to continue that struggle which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the world community. Without that support, we cannot win the war against terrorism regardless of the military might of the United States. However, I have not been duped into believing that the invasion of Iraq is part and parcel of the war against terror. In fact, I think it seriously detracts from the anti-terror effort and may very well exacerbate the use of terrorism against us and others. There is already evidence of that effect.
Our government has unfortunately made the unilateral decision to invade Iraq for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. We would have been perfectly justified in continuing to Baghdad in 1991 and removing Saddam. We had a legitimate reason and the support of the world. We subsequently had the opportunity, twice, to support a revolution by Iraqis, to overthrow Saddam. We chose not to do so under the administration of George the First. Now we are dealing with and effort by his son to correct the errors of the father by making even greater errors in this ill advised invasion.
Contrary to popular opinion, the people of that area of the world do not really hate Americans. What they hate are the policies of the American government which have been inconsistent with the mores of the American people for the last half century. That is not limited to the GWB administration. Ever since we became a "super power" (after WWII) our government has adopted the arrogance of that status. Whether we choose to recognize that or not, a majority of the world's people object strongly to the foreign policy of our government.
The success and power of the United States is NOT lost on the rest of the world and most would like to share in our economic and political successes as well as the technology they have produced. However, they want to do it in their way and they do NOT want to have the will of the US imposed upon them because they fear our military power.
The peoples of these developing nations don't "like" dictators any more than do the peoples of the "advanced" nations. Just like us, they do want to feed and house their people, raise and educated their children, and they do want the right to decide for themselves. To a great extent they don't have that ability because our government supports the dictatorships and sells them the arms used to oppress the people. They rebel against us because our government is the source of their inability to rebel successfully against their own despotic governments.
Sometimes they succeed in spite of what the US Govt. does to prevent it, but most of the time they do not. Occasionally, we do intervene on the side of "good", but for the most part our policy supports the despots, as long as they are willing to do our bidding. This is especially true in countries outside of Europe, a fact also not lost on the peoples of other regions. That is what the radicals are rebelling against. That is the cause of the terrorists.
Everyone doesn't react in the same way to what our government does, but the only part of the world in which the reaction is favorable is western Europe. Why is that? In part because we are doing the same things now that the old European regimes did when they were the "super powers" of their time and, of course, we are not doing it to them. They "understand" it because it is a modern version of their old ways.
The parts of the world that do not understand and do not want it, are the same parts of the world that were the pervious victims of European hegemony. Latin America - Spain, India (including Pakistan) and the Middle East - Great Britain, Indo China and North Africa - France, Indonesia - Holland, etc., etc.
continued
