Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:33:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
480 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> Can there be a free state in Mesopotamia? I know that there cannot with Saddam
> Hussein there, but what about when he's gone? If the locals don't want a
> democracy, or aren't organized enough for it to be efficient, what will we have
> bought them? And really, I think we all know that Iraq is no threat to the US,
> so what will we have gained for us?
Hmm, the question of what to do if the locals don't want a a free state.
It seems obvious to us that anyone (who won't have substantial power in
the alternative state) should prefer a free state, but is that really
true? If it isn't, what do we do? How much should we put up with
governments that forment trouble (including our own?)?
I don't think Iraq is/was a direct threat the the US (well, other than
to our macho image...), but I think it was an indirect threat. I think
it's threat level also was insignificant because of the sanctions, but
sanctions aren't supportable forever (morally or economically). I have
to admit that I had a fear of what would happen if we just backed down
from the sanctions and let Iraq be. That would have let Sadam "win" and
that winning would have gained him power (how big a factor was bin
Laden's "winning" with the embassy bombings in reqruiting people for
9-11?).
I think we now have the opportunity to do in Iraq what we did in Germany
and Japan. Sadly, I don't think it will happen. Without the world's
backing, and without our need for the world's backing, and our need for
mutual admiration from Iraq (remember, both Germany and Japan stood to
lose a lot if Russia flexed her muscles), I fear that we will take half
measures. Our opportunity is actually better than in Afghanistan (where
there were almost credible locals to hand power to despite their
questionable suitability, in Iraq, there is no credible opposing party
to hand power to [well, ok, we'll probably hand some power to the Kurds,
and that may or may not pay off]).
On the other hand, perhaps we've kicked the Arab world enough in the
shin that we will awake the sleeping whatever. Whatever comes from this,
will set the tone for how the Arab world is accepted. If the result is
more senseless violence, we may just have to write off the culture. If
the result is that the common Arab person starts to demand more freedom
and power, and uses that freedom and power to create peace, then
something good will have happened. It would be easy for the Arab world
to rise up in anger against the West (somehow I have a feeling that
while the anger is directed at the US, it will hit Europe hardest), but
that would be no better (or maybe worse) than what the US has done.
Compare using military aircraft bombing military targets and
incidentally hitting civilians (because bombs can't be perfectly
accurate, or the civilians were placed in harms way, or the military
installation was built in their neighborhood) with capturing civilian
aircraft and using them to target a non-military installation. Sure,
people make the argument that the target was an economic target that
represented the enslavement of the masses, but I reject that argument.
While corporations certainly have abused their power, I can not accept a
system that says that it's wrong to seek wealth and betterment.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
