Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ez
As you said, it is the right (duty) of the people to throw off such an oppressive government....the duty of those people living under that government...not our duty as America. Your ideals are noble and shared but our country has never and I'll wager will never go to war for this reason. If we have a more global cause and the targeted country is offensive to mankind in this manner as well then we will use this offensiveness to our advantage in the propaganda wars. That's the way it has always been....or do you think that we went to war with Japan because of the Rape of Nanking? I know that you don't. The point is that to argue that this article presents a reason to commit US troops to war without commiting the same to a dozen other countries ignores both history and current world real politik.
76 posted on 03/17/2003 3:32:51 PM PST by wtc911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: wtc911
This article points out the duplicity of the Left. They are so very willing to paint Bush and Rumsfeld and Blair as warmongers, yet take so little care in discovering anything about who is the beneficiary of their activities. It is one part of a large tapestry of evidence which shows that Saddam is evil and by their actions, the peaceniks have chosen to stand in defence of this evil.

Regards, Ivan

79 posted on 03/17/2003 3:37:31 PM PST by MadIvan (Learn the power of the Dark Side, www.thedarkside.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: wtc911
As you said, it is the right (duty) of the people to throw off such an oppressive government....the duty of those people living under that government...not our duty as America.

Well, it is not our duty, but it should be our goal. I give you Japan and Germany as examples of countries who are better neighbors because we DID step in in the past.

We almost agree...I'm not advocating invading countries for human rights abuses alone, but I am saying that in such cases as we are able make a justifiable case for national security, our overall objective in such instances should be "regime change." The overall strategy would have to be adhered to over decades, as they have between the liberation of Germany from the fascists and the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.

I'd say Iran amd North Korea are the only two countries that present such an opportunity at this time.

101 posted on 03/17/2003 4:23:35 PM PST by ez (Advise and Consent = Debate and VOTE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: wtc911
For half a centurt the UN has been avoiding war and tacitly supporting brutal dictators in the name of peace. The model for global governance proffered by the UN is effete and dangerous to human liberty.

That there must be a form of global law enforcement is a natural result of changes in the world, over which we have no control. Each of us is destined to choose what form that governance may take.

Here, now, we have an emerging force in the world that can act to cut back the growth of socialism and brutality. That may seem a little "imperialistic", but in the absence of such action, the UN's paradigm will predominate, and the planet will continue the flush itself down a rathole.

People yearning for liberty everywhere will follow a strong lead, and support the overthrow of evil in their own countries; but someone has to lead : that leadership has devolved upon the US, UK, Austrailia, Poland, and others.

There is a race between communism allied with brutality and the Jeffersonian idiology of limited government subordinate to the natural liberties of persons. The UN espouses the former; the Anglosphere, the latter. By choosing to allow dictators to have what they will in their own countries, you also tacitly endorse tyranny: tyranny can not survive without parisitically feeding on prosperous, free nations. They are, by nature, propelled to swollow up societies like the one in which you live.

And as if that knowledge would not be enough to have one choose a position on the side of aggressive support of liberty, I would think that the simple knowledge that somewhere--anywhere--there was a human subject to brutality by the likes of Saddam, would be enough to move the heart and mind toward resolute counter-offense. We owe that support by virtue of our humanity, in addition to our interest in self-preservation.

I recall a network TV news story about one 19 year-old boy in Afghanistan who taught himself English and studied history by means of an illegal satellite dish and forbidden books. He hid the Oxford English Dictionary under the floorboards in his bedroom. For him, alone, was the liberation of that place worth the effort: he was at risk of death for his pursuits. I said to myself, " Here is a future leader of Afghanistan!"

As to attacking tyranny and brutality everywhere at once: that's impossible; but Iraq is a good place to start.

You have a choice: support action against all those evil bastards, or isolate yourself from "foreign entanglements" until the armies they nurture beat down your door.

104 posted on 03/17/2003 4:26:53 PM PST by dasboot (Direct from the dirty, dark underbelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson