My left/liberal friends don't consider me left or liberal. (I am a fan of the Constitution, but many conservatives are that. I also have called Bill Clinton a scumbag rapist on SI, and didn't vote for Hillary.) I don't do much thinking about the category, except to notice that many SI people avoid answering hard questions about this Administration's actions by changing the subject to the L word. It's merely a kind of argument-by-name-calling, but one easily gotten away with.
You might consider answering my questions about the war we're actually engaged in and the rationale for the invasion which you offer -- ie that it was important to get rid of a tyrant and spread democracy. I would really, really be interested in an answer to these questions:
Do you think we should invade North Korea for the purpose of "spreading democracy" and "kicking out a tyrant"? You couldn't do it to a more monstrous guy than Kim Il Jong.
Then, how about invading Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Syria?
Cuba is a nasty spot, too. Invade?
Why aren't we invading those places, kicking out their tyrants, and spreading Democracy? Because it's perhaps not so simple, making these calculations?
Uzbekistan is a vicious dictatorship. It's got everything. Torture, suppression of political parties, official corruption, cult of personality, and its oppression is generating an extreme Islamic resistance response. We could crush them in a minute. Why don't we? Oh yeah, they're our pals.
How about Pakistan? A military dictatorship turning a blind eye to the dissemination by its nuclear scientists of WMD technologies. This is not like the speculation Colin Powell presented to the world about al quaeda hobnobbing with Iraq. It's fact. Why don't we invade them?
I wonder why we chose Iraq to invade. I wonder if it was for the reasons we citizens were sold.
What do you think, LindyBill, is the reason we chose Iraq instead of a country that brags about its WMD? |
