Wilma de Soto wrote:
" And many people in many parts of the world dislike democracy because it
undermines many of their existing structures of power-- say, dictators,
militarists, religious fanatics and fascists."
That may be the way you and I view their way of power, but that may not be
how how other people in many parts of the world may see it.
This strikes me as a rationalization against any kind of social justice.
If someone told me in the 1980s that it was useless to hope for improvement in El Salvador, because the people there were used to death squads and torture, and maybe they _don't_ see it as a bad thing, I'd figure they were insane. Or Elliott Abrams.
Lastly, I never said that I thought Iraq was better under the rule ofActually, the culpability of U.S. for Saddam goes further back-- to Ford and Kissinger, with additional help from Carter and Reagan.
Saddam Hussein. One must remember who it was that empowered Saddam Hussein
in the first place; the US government under Pres. George H.W. Bush to use
Iraq against the Iranian government.
But it seems to me that this increases the responsibility of the U.S. to repair Iraq. After all, if Saddam's depredations are our fault, in part, then we bear the responsibility to make amends. I certainly wish it was being done in a better way.
I am certain many Iraqis recall that and perhaps do not trust anyone fromNo sane person would _trust_ the U.S. to do right by Iraq. After all, it was Kissinger's policy to encourage the Kurds to revolt, whereupon he abandoned them in favor of "stability" in the region. Somehow, though, the U.S. managed to protect the Kurdish regions in Iraq over the past few years. That's why we _demand_ things from our government. (And that's why I like democracy; it enables us to demand things.)
our government to do right by them this time either.
But I've heard this argument before, and it's pretty much gibberish. It goes something like this. The U.S. claims to be doing something that's beneficial. However, it's done horrific things in the recent past. Therefore... well, either the U.S. can do no right, or even its rights are severely compromised, so we should oppose it entirely. For example: the U.S. says it's deposing Saddam. But the U.S. supported him for decades. Therefore, the U.S. should not depose Saddam. Or something like that. It's not an argument so much as a continual reciting of atrocities that offers _no_ reason to expect any improvement.
In other words; if Bush Junior's screwed up the economy and ruined our foreign policy standing, then why should the rest of the world have expected anything different from John Kerry?
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
