I don't think we have a choice but to "like the results".
Thats far from clear to me. If the Afghans execute a few converts what will your view be? Egypt does not do that for example.
And as I've also stated, if it turns out that we find ourselves with a few nations that elect "Hamas" style governments, then we will no longer have to concern ourselves with "innocent civilians". We will be free to confront and wage war against them as we did against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
IMO, Hamas is very little different from ZANU and ZAPU of Zimbabwe 30 years ago. The main difference is that the last half century has seen much encouragement for immigration of Jews to Palestine, while no equivalent was done for white immigration into southern Africa. Other than that they are pretty similar. In the case of southern Africa, most western states, including the USA, thought that the region should revert to the original owners, so it did. BTW, in S. Africa, there was a movement to form a white state in the Cape region, but it never gained much traction. Kind of like Israel/Pals.
Hamas is not the problem of the USA. It is a problem of land between ethnic groups in the ME. If we want to solve that problem, tackle it head on.
What you are not addressing is that the "Islamo-Facists" want primarily to run their own neck of the woods without us butting in. If we stay out, we have no problem. I would hardly move their myself, but then its none of my business what sort of Gov. they decide to impose on themselves.
Most of the insurgent groups of southern Africa were Communists. One could have rambled on and on about how Communists wanted to take over the world (they certainly had that rhetoric) hence we should have defended Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, S.W. Africa, and S. Africa against falling under the dominion of these Communist monsters. But anyone thinking about it for a minute or so, could pretty easily understand that Communism was nothing but a lubricant for the real issue which was ethnic squabbles over land, and a desire to have equal(or better) treatment in their own land. The "Islamo-Facists" are the same thing.
There were plenty of blacks in southern Africa who were just happy with white rule, and indeed would have preferred that it stayed in place. They were from smaller tribes that knew how things would go with majority rule. I'm pretty sure for that matter that 90%+ of blacks throughout those regions are worse off economically today than they would have been with no war and continued white rule. But that does not address the issue that people have pride and need to feel that they are treated equitably.
Is it better to be rich and 2'nd class, or poor and 1'st class? Do you understand that question? |
