IT SEEMS VERY HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE
especially those in high places, but also those striving for high places--to grasp a simple truth: "The United States does not belong in Iraq." Howard Zinn rips to shreds the Iraqi occupation and also notes that John Kerry is not an alternative to Bush. "We need a peace President," writes Zinn.
UPDATE: "IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY?" Tim Sandefur (read through the entire post)questions a recent LJ post. Mr. Sandefur: It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was funny. Actually, it was just a pointer to his post, which basically says that Bush's crimes in Iraq (through his agents, the U.S. soldiers) are less evil than the crimes committed by Saddam and his agents. Unfortunately, I think that's a bit like tallying up a murderer's victims and pronouncing him "more evil" than the second place finisher. Whatever makes you happy. (Of course, remember the second murderer did it all in the name of "freedom" and "security").
Mr. Sandefur also commented in his original post: "Had we followed the doctrines laid down by Mr. Neale, and done nothing, Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission." First, the U.S. did "something" for many years: they supported the Iraqi regime. But, putting that aside, was Saddam a threat to American liberty or just a nasty dictator? Why should one government (the U.S.) coerce its people into overthrowing another government (Iraq)? Plenty of repressive regimes exist throughout the world, when will we take those down? Is it written in the sacred U.S. Constitution: "American people must sacrifice blood and treasure to free the world from dictators"?
Also, as I've alluded to above, Saddam was not the entire Iraqi regime. How did he ever commit all those acts of torture by himself? Must have been a busy guy. To say "we got rid of Saddam" and therefore the Iraqis are free of oppression is ridiculous. Thousands of willing participants made up Saddam's regime. A tyrant cannot rule through torture alone. Taking out "Saddam" did little to promote the freedom and security Mr. Sandefur so dearly cherishes. Remember, former Baathist leaders may be recruited for key roles in "stabilizing" Iraq.
More Sandefur: "And unthinking hostility to American military involvement is utterly irresponsible and dangerous to the security and liberty of the world's people. For example, the American military kept the world free from the domination of the greatest evil ever known to our species--Soviet communism. In the meantime it did some awful things."
Maybe you spent too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh in junior high (don't worry, I was listening, too), but "communism" is not a viable economic system! It did not need to be combatted by U.S. Cold War statism. It will always devolve into chaos and fail. More violence and statism is not the answer to every variant of evil statism.
Finally, contrary to Mr. Sandefur's passionate plea to support more violence in the world in defense of "our posterity," I think it's this type of undying love and devotion for the U.S. State (or any State) which is the greatest threat to human liberty and security.
UPDATE: "IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY?" Tim Sandefur (read through the entire post)questions a recent LJ post. Mr. Sandefur: It wasn't supposed to be funny, it was funny. Actually, it was just a pointer to his post, which basically says that Bush's crimes in Iraq (through his agents, the U.S. soldiers) are less evil than the crimes committed by Saddam and his agents. Unfortunately, I think that's a bit like tallying up a murderer's victims and pronouncing him "more evil" than the second place finisher. Whatever makes you happy. (Of course, remember the second murderer did it all in the name of "freedom" and "security").
Mr. Sandefur also commented in his original post: "Had we followed the doctrines laid down by Mr. Neale, and done nothing, Saddam Hussein would today still be torturing people into submission." First, the U.S. did "something" for many years: they supported the Iraqi regime. But, putting that aside, was Saddam a threat to American liberty or just a nasty dictator? Why should one government (the U.S.) coerce its people into overthrowing another government (Iraq)? Plenty of repressive regimes exist throughout the world, when will we take those down? Is it written in the sacred U.S. Constitution: "American people must sacrifice blood and treasure to free the world from dictators"?
Also, as I've alluded to above, Saddam was not the entire Iraqi regime. How did he ever commit all those acts of torture by himself? Must have been a busy guy. To say "we got rid of Saddam" and therefore the Iraqis are free of oppression is ridiculous. Thousands of willing participants made up Saddam's regime. A tyrant cannot rule through torture alone. Taking out "Saddam" did little to promote the freedom and security Mr. Sandefur so dearly cherishes. Remember, former Baathist leaders may be recruited for key roles in "stabilizing" Iraq.
More Sandefur: "And unthinking hostility to American military involvement is utterly irresponsible and dangerous to the security and liberty of the world's people. For example, the American military kept the world free from the domination of the greatest evil ever known to our species--Soviet communism. In the meantime it did some awful things."
Maybe you spent too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh in junior high (don't worry, I was listening, too), but "communism" is not a viable economic system! It did not need to be combatted by U.S. Cold War statism. It will always devolve into chaos and fail. More violence and statism is not the answer to every variant of evil statism.
Finally, contrary to Mr. Sandefur's passionate plea to support more violence in the world in defense of "our posterity," I think it's this type of undying love and devotion for the U.S. State (or any State) which is the greatest threat to human liberty and security.
Unknown @ 9:44 AM
Permalink
<< Home