Posted on 09/17/2003 8:43:40 AM PDT by u-89
I agree that the holy places should be preserved. And I see Israel as the only stable democratic nation in that area. I beleive that they know who's in the drivers' seat. Otherwise, Arafat would be history by now (and should be anyway, IMHO).
PS- Noam Chomsky and Howard Zin do not rate as historians. That they are "superstars" among the left actually makes me feel good as both are jokes.
But you do keep posting screeds from America (and free-liberal civilization) hating, pro-totalitarian leftists (who do focus their invective on "one particular adminstration"). Why's that?
Hmmm.
Iraq War II: Deposed a fascistic dictatorship, potentially to be replaced by a liberal democracy, or at least a broadly representative government.
Iraq War I: Liberated Kuwait, which is now the only Gulf State with an elected parliament. Although the executive (Emir) is unelected, he has scrupulously followed the constitution, which invests the parliament with real power (e.g. it must approve all decress from the executive, and often votes not to do so).
Afghanistan: Another fascistic, totalitarian system deposed. Also well along to be replaced by representative government. The world bank has estimated growth of 28 percent since the war in this impoverished country. The new military is multi-tribal, multi-ethnic. An important first in a country ravaged by decades of tribal warfare, warlordism and strife.
Panama: Broke up a network that channeled drug money into arms for terroristic regional insurgencies.
Grenada: Replaced a Marixist/Lennist/Militarist dictatorship with democracy.
That's just a few off the top of my head, but it would appear that, by "futility," the author means the expansion of human liberty and the security of free nations.
Kosovo has a "liberal democratic" government as well under NATO occupation though we still censor the press and only a tiny number of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies remain in Kosovo as all the rest reside in squalid refugee camps in Serbia proper as they have been driven out in the last 5 years while our troops play ping pong in Camp Bondsteel. Meanwhile the rest of the Kosovo Albanians are at the mercy of crime and warlords and think "liberal democracy" is gangsterism.
In Afghanistan Opium poppy production is at an all time high and drug addicts from Tashkent, to Moscow, to Hamburg, to New York are very happy with the price of Heroin. The "government" in Afghanistan controls little more than the buildings it meets in.
Panama? LOL.
Grenada? I will give you that one as that Island's inhabitants still are grateful for Reagan's liberation. If you want to find some pro-American folks go to Grenada.
Then why don't women have the vote in Kuwait? After all, the Emir (on recommendation of his advisory council) decreed their enfranchisement way back in 1999. Again, the Kuwaiti parliament does in fact have real power. BTW, parliament did approve economic liberalization decrees from the executive, leading Kuwait to be identified by the Heritage Foundation as one of the freest economies on the globe.
I'm certainly not saying that Kuwait is perfect. Far from it. But to pretend that their liberation was "futile," and that Kuwait as it exists is not infinitely preferable (both in terms of Kuwaiti and American interests) to its brutal subjugation as an Iraqi province, is just absurd.
As for your list of countries we went to war with you sound like the opening lines of the old superman TV show "truth, justice and the American way." Makes one all teary eyed with pride that does but you obviously don't look very close to the actual events or consider the grand strategic and economic benefits behind the moves. The Gulf War One we had no legitimate business initiating and Afghanistan and Gulf War Two directly stem from it, as does the terrorist attacks on us that occurred since then.
Just a note on Panama. Did you know that Noriega was a CIA asset up till we decided to take him out? Do you think shangi- ing him back to the US to prosecute him, a foreigner, in US courts with US domestic laws which have no jurisdiction over Panama citizens activities in Panama was a just move? So why did we we take out "our" man? Because he became uncooperative and the canal was vital to our security? Then why did we allow it to be handed over the Chinese if it was so vital to us we went to war for it?
TOO easy!
The Dims USED to be "the War Party" but the neo-cons have stuggled mightily to rest that title from them and have earned it!
Not all critics of our foreign policy are leftist though. If you believe this then you are very uninformed.
No, far from it. I simply remove the blinders before I examine our foreign policy.
>How else would they have gotten away with murder, and suicide bombing blackmail, for the last 30 years?
They attack us because we interfere with their affairs and we are on their turf. They have "gotten away with it" as you say because we wish to remain involved in their affairs and on their turf. If things go as planned according to our "best and brightest" we will stay in the region till the end of time and since somethings never change - like human nature - we will continue to be the targets of terroists. Our intevention solves nothing and will only be the cause for more attacks.
No, because he f***ed us. Because he was lying to us, and working with Castro to undermine American (and democratic) interests in Central America. But we shoulda just let him dupe us, right? Maybe the CIA should've directed a memo to all foreign assests formally announcing that they were free to betray all obligations to the United States (even to persue objectives exactly opposite to those agreed, as Noriega did) while retaining all benefits of their association.
BTW, you seem to have forgotten that Noriega formally declared Panama to be at war with the United States on 15 December 1989, i.e. before our invasion. So all this gives a pretty good idea of the no-war-no-time party's foreign policy views: Hostile regimes should be permitted to participate in smuggling drugs into the United States, smuggling arms to communist/terrorist insurgencies against freindly democratic governments (Columbia), and we must treat the heads of such regimes as legitimate heads of state, and by no means confront them militarily, even if they've openly declared war on us.
I should grant, however, that the United States did not consider the Declaration of War by Noriega legal, since he was not recognized as head of state. This was also why it was possible to indict him. (Noriega was fired as head of the Panamanian Armed Forces by the Panamanian President, but simply ignored that and then conived in having the legislature remove the President. Noriega then stole an election for President, the rightful winner of which was recognized by the United States as Panama's legitimate leader.)
It should also be noted that war was by no means the first resort wrt to Panama. Economic sanctions were tried, as was negotiation. There was even a deal made in '88 for Noriega to step down, in exchange for dropping the '86 drug indictment, but Noriega reniged.
It's not "their turf". They are murderers, thugs and theives, who kill, brutalize and pillage Arabs, Persians, Asians, etc, just as much as, indeed more often than, they do Americans, Europeans or Israelis. The most fundamental principle of Western liberalism, but also a universal principle necessary to any durable institution of human freedom, is that soveriegnty ultimate derives from and inheres in the people. It betrays this princple to describe the Middle East as "the turf" of bands of thugs pushing Islamic Fascism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.