I haven’t ever posted in the Pit, because in general I don’t like being abused and called an asshat, but we all have to be deflowered eventually, right?
Here goes…
:dons cup and hardhat:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/20/kuwait.womanminister.ap/index.html
More than a decade after we ‘liberated’ Kuwait, there is one female MP, and she got in through the back door, not by being elected. Will someone please explain to me why we bothered to liberate this backward-ass, medeival country? How many tens of thousands of people have died for this decision? Why should a single life be lost to ‘rescue’ a country whose values are diametrically opposed to our own, who don’t recognize equality of the genders, or any other 20th-century value, as far as I can tell? If I saw Saddam Hussein kicking Fred Phelps’s ass, I would stand back and watch, not try to stop the beating. Why is Kuwait any different?
You seem confused why the US fought the war over Kuwait. Of course it wasn’t about democracy.
What military effort has the US made over Burma, for example?
‘Burma is ruled by one of the most brutal military dictatorships in the world; a dictatorship charged by the United Nations with a “crime against humanity” for its systematic abuses of human rights, and condemned internationally for refusing to transfer power to the legally elected Government of the country – the party led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.’
Consider the main product of Kuwait. Oil.
And there you have it. It’s also why Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the US. Have a look at their governing system.
This being the SDMB, I knew this would be the first answer I got. But I was hoping for more of a moral justification. Anyone who *really, honestly * thinks that it is permissible to go to war to lower the price of oil by a few dollars a barrel is the asshat worn by an asshat.
As said above the answer is oil, if Kuwait were a famous producer of cabages do you reallt think we would have liberated them? (Rhetorical question BTW)
Take a look at how long it took for us to step in in the Balkans, reason - no oil.
Same thing for Iraq, the only thing in Iraq that’s been liberated from oppression is the precious oil.
Nobody really gives a shit about spreading democracy, this is all just about continuation of an oil supply for the west. And by using my car and demanding lower fuel prices I am as guilty of anyone else of contributing to these injustices.
I agree with the OP, if people want to live in a medieval society, where they do not respect the rights of an enture sex or of individuals why should we assist them. All our war on terror achieves is to exacerbate the problems that the people in these countries experience leading to more resentment of the west. Even if democracy is achieved the most likely outcome would be an islamist government that is anti western in its approach.
Welllll… as a general rule, unprovoked invasion of another country, as Iraq/Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait, is seen as a Bad Thing. Since Saddam was still licking his wounds after the long and nasty Iran-Iraq war, which he also started, there was good reason to believe he had grander plans that would involve even more of the region. To prevent chaos, Kuwait had to be returned to its rightful dictator.
Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that the West wouldn’t care too much about the region if it wasn’t for the sticky black stuff. When’s the last time you heard someone get outraged about the fate of Western Sahara?
And this is somehow America’s fault? We should have let the rapes continue. Why bother defending the ones that had no defense?
I hope you immediately stand up and say to the women in Kuwait, “I wish you were all raped again! I don’t give a shit that you were invaded by this guy that some here still defend!”
You fuckers make me sick. I don’t even care if it’s in half-jest. And seeing some of you, I suspect it isn’t. Win me over by convincing me how the invasion back then was acceptable.
I don’t think they are saying that the invasion was acceptable. Just questioning if they are any better off after being saved.
The same question could be asked by Iraqi’s.
Perhaps Mr Bush just needs to look more carefully at who he saves and why.
Has he noticed Zimbabwe? Sadam didn’t like those who argued with him, Mugabe seems to not like most of his countrymen. Sadam tortured or killed those who didn’t agree with him or criticised him. Mugabe just runs rough shot over his country willy nilly.
For those who have had their homes bulldozed and their lives destroyed…I have my fingers crossed that you find oil.
I’m not sure that anyone, anywhere wants to invade Zimbabwe…it just seems that while Sadam was obviously extremely nasty to anyone who opposed him, Mugabe is just evil.
It is a shame that places like Zimbabwe and North Korea don’t have oil.
You know, you’d have had me there, except that one of the injustices that always has the Left’s panties in a bunch is that we won’t make nice-nice with Castro.
Some of you folks only complain about dictators when they’re not your dictators.
I’d rather stand up to the 100+thousand dead conscripted Iraqi soldiers, the 50+thousand dead Iraqi civilians, etc., and say, “I’m glad you’re all dead!” Oops–except I can’t, because they’re all dead. :rolleyes: Wars have costs. Let’s be judicious concerning the circumstances under which we start them.
It has everything to do with my OP. Wars have huges costs in terms of civilian lives, and in terms of the lives of soldiers who are often not volunteers. Why incur that cost to liberate a nation which systematically violates the basic human rights of its citizens, without in any way making civil reform a condition of that liberation?
BTW, I assume you mean I have a hard-on for Bush junior. I’m not pitting him; he didn’t liberate Kuwait.
I don’t want to make too much of this, but the fact is that Kuwait is now, and has been since 1991, free from Iraq and the threat that they posed. Now, you may not like their form of government, but isn’t it enough to say that the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 allowed them to have the choice?
We can’t make people eat democracy until they choke on it. They have to take a bite all by themselves. And it appears that this might be the first little nibble. Or maybe not. They have the right to do whatever their hearts desire, thanks to us. And isn’t that really what democracy is about in a nutshell? The right to choose the sleazeball down the corner, the feminist radical, the religious nutjob, or the calm, rational human being is what it’s all about. I would venture to say that had we not done what we did in 1991 they would never have the opportunity.
I don’t care about Castro, he may be the exception that proves the rule, possibly the one case where the US has dealt with someone from a position of moral authority (except for guantanamo bay).
Which dictators are my dictators?
Personally I’m against all forms of repression whether religious or political (left or right). I agree with the quote “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others”, Winston Churchill I think, please excuse any misquoting.
The point is that we are only exporting democracy to those places where it will directly benefit the interests of the west, while still doing business with some of the most corrupt and repressive regimes on the planet. Why? For oil of course. The problem is when these regimes collapse as they inevitably do, they will more likely than not be replaced by regimes that are not sympathetic to the west.
If we really want ot bring democracy to the middle east, we need to encourage the lot of the normal people, not with bombs but by not doing business with their corrupt leaders. Unfortunately we all like to drive cars, so this is unlikely to happen until we move away from an oil based economy.
I dunno. It allowed the Kuwaiti **men ** to choose–and they (not surprisingly) chose to keep on doing what they had been doing for decades–namely, deny basic human rights to 50% of their population. What I am getting at is that given the cost of war, why would we put our asses on the line for people who don’t share our basic values, or even a basic commitment to human rights? And without demanding that they clean up their act as a condition of their liberation?
And it’s not just that I don’t like their form of government–it’s that I think their form of government, which disenfranchises half of the population, is fundamentally immoral. C’mon, guys, it’s us liberals who are supposed to be the relativists!
