What's in a word? If the Soviet Union (lets say back in the 80's) had invaded Iraq and deposed its government would we have called them "liberators?" It's pretty unlikely indeed. If they then installed a hand-picked government and remained in the country indefinitely would we see that as a positive step? Well...they were communist so that would be bad of course but the point is there's a pretty fine line if any between "liberating" and "conquering."
If WE do it of course it's liberation. The same way if we doing ANYTHING it's ok 'cause we're the good guys. Has anyone EVER thought that their country wasn't the best one?...that THEY weren't THE GOOD GUYS whose actions are obviously justified whatever they do because it's inherently for the right reasons? In our case, it's just UNDERSTOOD that every nation MUST want and MUST HAVE our system of government and economic model-PERIOD! Never mind the wishes of a nation's citizenry if they might NOT want such a system! They just don't understand how great it is is all...We liberated them!!!!! WHy aren't those bastards grateful?
My friend Chris (WHO REALLY SHOULD HAVE A BLOG!!!!!) brought up the fact that many conservatives seem to have the opinion of liberals that liberals are so spineless and weak and eager to placate everyone that they wouldn't even defend our country if it were attacked. They'd just say "eh...we don't want any trouble...let's not fight back..." Obviously conservatives would defend us against aggressors!!!! They LOVE their country and no foreigner's gonna march in and tell AMERICA what to do! That's what we're SUPPOSED TO DO RIGHT?!?!!? (you see where I'm going here I bet) So why would anyone expect Iraqis to say "c'mon in America and tell us how to run our (Islamic) country!" Would America welcome Iraq in such a manner if Iraq decided to invade us and install an Islamic government because our government is WRONG? Wouldn't the obvious thing to do when invaded be to resent the invaders (we ARE invaders in Iraq regardless of if we're liberating or conquering it). Not to fight invaders here would be UNAMERICAN right? How about in IRAQ?
I'm not defending Sadaam in the slightest. I'm just saying the Iraqis want to RUN THEIR OWN COUNTRY just like ANY COUNTRY DOES! If they welcomed the fall of Sadaam they would hope that the US would leave to let them now run their own affairs. Wouldn't THAT make the country much less hateful of the US and less likely to breed terror than a LONG OCCUPATION would? Obviously we only plan to occupy indefinitely because WE WANT TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE FUTURE OF IRAQ! Why would we go to so much trouble to fight this war if we were just interested in "liberating" Iraq?
That's too simple. We gotta get something out of it right (or else our soldiers would be home safe and not stuck there getting killed all the time). Maybe one could argue that we want to FINISH the job in Iraq (unlike Afghanistan which is totally falling apart now). In that case maybe we should have gone in with a plan. If we had no plan then maybe going in wasn't a great idea in the first place huh? I bet all the Vietnam-dodgers who run the country today might not have been so quick to send off so many soldiers to die in what is quickly appearing to be a needless and endless war had they themselves ever fought in one. Unfortunately, our troops don't have a choice to send others to die in their places.
10:46:38 AM 
|
