Well said.
Does that mean that now America has given Iraq a “nibble” they will be leaving soon?
Does America intend to spread the nibble?
Spread the word.
The people of Cuba have benefited mightily and rejoiced in the democracy that the US has bought them.
If they wern’t dancing in the streets they may well be paddling to America.
If there’s one thing you need to take away from this debacle in Iraq, it’s that people get the government they want (or deserve). If they want a new one they can put in half as much effort as they do killing people in Iraq with suicide bombs and remedy the situation.
The governments that they have are the governments they are happy with. What we see as corruption they see as normal day-to-day business. We can’t frame our arguments from our perspective and expect everybody to see it our way. The mess we have over there right now is what happens when we do that. The people in the Middle East will choose their own fate. Thay have to. We can’t do it for them. If we don’t all we’ll be doing is getting in the middle of a fight we can’t possibly win (reference Sunni/Shia, Jew/Muslim, Arab/Kurd conflicts).
Now, I agree that we need to get away from oil ASAP so as to stop funding these people, and barring that we need to reduce usage, but until that happens we need them. Reality trumps wishful thinking every time.
Were they rioting in the streets to get rid of Sadam? Every news report I saw had Iraqis claiming they were happy and going to win the war.
Mugabe has banned journalists. The only reports are made secretly and no one seems even vaguely happy.
It seems Mr Blair should be asking Mr Bush for help this time.
I really can’t disagree with you there. BTW I meant “improve the lot” not “encourage the lot”, that’s what I get for not previewing.
I can see how happy they are to be rid of Saddam every time I turn on the news.
Come on. Saddam might have been a scumbag, but what have we given them in return? Nothing but not-so-random bombings in the streets and daily violence. It’s easier to be afraid of the boogeyman than it is to be afraid of the other monsters in your closet once you get rid of him. Saddam was predictable. What is happening now is not.
As far as Mugabe goes, it’s the same old story. Change comes from within. All that is required for change is for someone in that country to grow some stones and cap the guy. Since they aren’t willing to make the change I can only conclude that they are happy with what they have, or else they are unwilling to try to change things for themselves. It could have happened with Saddam 20 years ago. We can’t make it happen for them.
Fuck off, asshat.
Hey, MM? If Cuba had oil, no doubt we’d have found a way to put up with Castro long ago, right?
That was my point. Average Joe Iraqi was safer under Sadam then he is now. Sadam was dangerous to those that dissented. Average Joe is more worried about feeding his family and being able to get to work and get his kids to school without being blown up, then he is in the machinations of the government.
Mugabe is actively terrorising the citizens of his country. He is making the conditions for Joe Avearge much worse then Sadam did in Iraq. You are right, it should be up to the people to make the change but considering Iraq’s people were “saved” before the govt bulldozed their houses surely Zimbabwe is worthy.
It is a damn shame that war is justifiable when a) WMD are hinted at b) Oil is involved and c) People are living in an undemocratic state in an important part of the world…but not justified when people are being terrorised, by the govt, in a country that the world has nothing to gain from.
Wasn’t Cuba something to do with sugar and CocaCola?
Learn your history. Cuba had missiles, so we found a way to put up with Castro.
If the missiles went away, Castro got to stay.
And there’s the problem. The world, sadly, isn’t chock full of democrats and democratic regimes. Sure, there are more now than there were before, but they used to be plenty scarce.
The United States and other countries had to swim in a pool filled with sharks as well as bluegills. Still does, as a matter of fact.
If you have a simple solution for this, let me in on it. But international relations isn’t known as a field with lots of easy answers.
Sounds like cultural elitism to me. How dare you ascribe superior values to one culture over another? Do you think Western culture is inherently superior somehow? What about diversity and tolerance? Huh?
How do bulldozed homes and starvation sound?
I agree with you, but also want to add that WE, the USA, helped Saddam to power (a fact that for some reason, Bush et al , never pointed out–I’m sure it was an oversight on Ari Fleischer’s part). So, I have to disagree with your last bit there about it could have happened 20 years ago–20 years ago or so, we were helping Saddam to power because of the Ayatollah in Iran. Saddy was our friend back in the day.
As for Cuba, I don’t have a cite, but I did hear on NPR a while back that agribusiness leaders and others etc want in to Cuba’s markets–for crops, but also for Coca-cola, blue jeans etc–you know that stuff that makes up our “culture”. So, I don’t see it as “liberals” wanting to make nice with Cuba–I see it as a hard headed business opportunity–and one that would kill Casto’s regime for all time, IMO. Is it fear of pissing off the Cuban-American base in Miami that stays Bushs’ hand? I think so.
Learn yours. If Cuba had something we wanted and needed, Castro wouldn’t have sucked up to the Soviets in the first place.
Who the hell are you saying needs to learn history? A large number of the authoritarian regimes in the world, during the Cold War but now too, were supported by the US simply because they said “We’re anti-Communist, now give us the money and the weapons”. Much of the fault *is * ours, and we need to do more to repair the damage. But first we need to stop creating it, no?
Not all solutions are simple or easy, and many aren’t even solutions but simple efforts. The lament that there aren’t any that don’t involve some effort or sacrifice on our part is too easy an excuse for sliding into a rationalization that we don’t need to, or shouldn’t, do anything at all. You are a prime example.
Well said! Just because the road ahead may be difficult does not mean that we should not make the attempt.
Although as Airman Doors, USAF says once people have a democratic choice of government we have no right to object to their choice, although we can retain the right to defend ourselves if attacked by said regime.
flodnak:
Whch it is.
Even when the United States is the one who does it. Even if the country we do it to once did the same thing to another country a decade or so ago.
Doing something doesn’t have to mean war. South Africa responded to pressure without any other kind of aggression (sanctions, sporting bans). It seems Sadam did too, unless he did rebuild his WMD and I missed the news.
The sanctions hurt Iraqis because there was no end to them other then ‘get rid of Sadam’. South Africa didn’t need a war. Diamonds vs Oil?
Something needs to happen when Joe Average is suffering. Iraq? Not so much. Zimbabwe? Yes.
The west has screwy priorities.
Tolerance is one thing; refusal to judge is merely weak-mindedness.
I’m not saying there aren’t answers, just that there aren’t easy ones.
It’s all well and good to say we shouldn’t deal with authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, but what if the only choice was to support an autocrat to prevent a total dictator from taking over?
Quite a dilemma, but one the United States faced many, many times. And while it backfired sometimes, it often proved successful.
South Korea today is prosperous and free. So is Taiwan. So is, amazingly enough, Chile, a country that suffered a worse autocracy than most.
No shit. What does that imply for our obligations? To you, nothing that you’ve been willing to share with us so far.
That is usually not the case, and is irrelevant to the many, many times we have supported an autocrat (who turned into a dictator, there’s little difference) over democracies.
Attributable in all cases primarily to their own efforts, not ours, and with our own role not clearly being supportive of them rather than obstructive. It is not clear that North Korea ever could successfully attack South Korea after the armistice, for instance, not without China’s backing - attribute SK’s relative peace to world diplomatic efforts rather than US support of their authoritarianism. Similar story in Taiwan - a Chinese invasion has never been plausible, but it was the excuse for supporting Chiang in the name of the hall of mirrors called anti-Communism. Chile had a nice democracy started before *we * overthrew it, with the same excuse. They still have authoritarian rule, “amazingly enough”.