Ted,
I think the Afghans would disagree with you.
A good point. Afthans didn't really gain much <edit> actually they suffered greatly </edit>, but I think people of Iraq gained a great deal.
where are the Iraqis in all of this? Why are they not fighting for their freedom?
That's easy to say from here to people who went through such a reign of terror, while the possibility still exists (at least in their minds) that it can return. I think we need to get Saddam, and then, I think Iraqis will more actively participate.
Why? Because they don't 'own' it. Its not their revolution...its Bush's. Its not their self determination that is doing the trick, its Bush's. Its not their fighting that's winning the battle, its Bush's soldiers.
I would differ on the Kurds, because they are very much part of it. Shiites are passive, probably because they remember vividly how we betrayed them in the early 90s. Sunnis, a good percentage of them, were beneficiaries of Saddam.
But as far as this being Bushes revolution, this is not the first time we liberated a country, which didn't do a great deal to help. France, Netherlands, Belgium etc. are good examples. Was it a bad idea to liberate them, since they put up so little resistance during WW2? Does Netherlands, Belgium, Holland suffer a lack of self determination because of the US/UK liberating them without their help?
But anyway, I asked about de Genova's route to self determination of Iraq. Do you know his answer?
Joe |
