Is that the "grateful Iraqis will welcome us with songs and flowers and love us forever" story again?
The Left's need for instant gratification on this is telling--childlike behavior. These people have been held by a ruthless dictator for 30 years. It may take a couple years for it to sink in. That doesn't seem complicated to me.
Then why, in your opinion, is the US not invading China to liberate Tibet?
This is another childlike question. It is as though you're arguing about why Iraq got a different piece of chocolate than North Korea. These are complex matters without a single, one-size fits all solution.
(1) US unconditionally supports Israel in its brutal occupation of Palestinians, their Muslim "brothers". Without US's support, Israel would not be able to make their brothers suffer. Thus, in their eyes, it is the fault of the US.
As Tom Friedman has pointed out, this is nonsense. It is against human nature. The people of Iraq are one hell of a lot more concerned about themselves than they are the Palestinians. The Palestinian conflict is merely a proxy for what they've not been able to do -- which is speak out against their own governments.
(2) While preaching democracy and freedom, US supports their brutal and undemocratic governments (ex: Saudi Arabia), hence keeping them oppressed and also being hypocritical.
So, let's see. They hate if we free them, they hate us if we don't. Sounds to me like whether we free them is immaterial in their hatred.
(3) US is embarked on a crusade against the Muslim world and has to be fought (as evidenced in their occupation of Iraq).
The US is defending itself against terrorists. We tolerated it for a long time, now we're doing something about it. It happens that removing Saddam is the best way to do it.
Really? How did Saddam's removal provide future security for American nation?
By placing a democracy in the center of the Middle East we will, over the coming 30 years or so see democracy spread. Iran will be next, even the Saudis are beginning to understand they have to change. This will give these people an opportunity to prosper, rather than have their talent usurped by a dictator or monarch.
Besides, "while Saddam had MINIMAL INVOLVEMENT with 9/11"? What minimal involvement is that? I would be interested to know because Bush himself said that there was no proof Saddam was involved with 9/11 AT ALL.
Well, we know there were training camps in Iraq as well as some Al Qaeda seeking refuge there. As I said, minimal involvement. It is immaterial, however. That isn't the reason Saddam needed to go.
Allow me to say, with great sadness, that this rather popular view that democracy can be installed by force in the Middle East, is a very naive one...
The first chance they get, Iraqis will most probably elect a religious nut, who will then be the legitimate, democratically elected head of Iraq and then what is the US going to do? Invade Iraq again?
Democracy comes from the inside, not from the outside and at the point of a gun, and even then, it has a painful road - just look at western history.
You are entitled to your view, wrong though it may be. The people of Iraq, given a chance, will choose democracy I believe. They just need a push in the right direction. Time will tell. I wonder if you'll be around to say, "I was wrong".
Personally, I don't have a "vision". I know a bit more about the place and the people living in it than most people around here, and for what it is worth, I try to explain why "they" seem to hate the US so, and why this forceful conversion of Iraq into a happy democracy populated with moderate Muslims who love the US is not likely to work out the way Bush et al says it will.
I think you know so much about it that you're just like the Arabs are -- so brainwashed with Al Jazeera propaganda that you can't see the forest for the trees. If one stands back at looks at the problem dispassionately, we certainly seem to be on a reasonable course to bring about positive change. Sometimes the path there can get pretty ugly. |
