Let see if I have my timeline correct. First we where involved in the War on Terror, then it became the War on Terrorists in Iraq, then it became the War to stop WMD, then it became the War to Free Iraq. Somehow, the why and rules and well everything can change in the middle of a war and the American people as a whole don't see to have a problem with it. Clinton sneezes in the wrong direction, we called it gate something. Bush can basically make up reason for war as he pleases and we just shrug and justify it to ourselves with "we freeing the people praise be!".
I am still confused when it became ok for the United States to force democracy at the end of the sword "you will like it or else!!!". I thought our role was to encourage it, to be the example that it works. Basically to tell the people, "You want it, you must fight for it and we will help you". In the end though it was always the people's fight to win or lose.
Apparently, under Bush this is no longer the case. Spreading democracy by any means necessary is an acceptable course of action. Not only acceptable, but honorable. Shouldn't we then, to bring freedom to other people, for women, "for the children", shouldn't we advocate a campaign against any country that doesn't have a democractic system of government. Why stop with such "easy" targets as Iraq? There are other people that have horrors brought on them, that have no freedom as we define it. Why not conquer Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, or North Korea? Why not those targets? To hard? Costs to high? Are you not being hypocritical in being choosey about who to spread democracy to and who not to? If you truly adovate this "free the people" mantra, shouldn't it be open season on any country that doesn't practice government as we define it? I guess I just don't understand this "freedom for some by force" for some but no others. I would love for someone to explain the distinction because I don't see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment