04-15-2003, 04:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2003, 04:26 AM by Chaerophon.)
I had heard of this, but hadn't actually come across it until now. I'll have to look it over in more detail before I can make any real comments, but I'll tell you, that's some frightening sh --- stuff. That's what you call an imperialist docrtine, plain and simple.
In the one piece, they referred to Bush's campaign against the 'Axis' and Iran in particular as a "Liberation theology". And, given that characterization, the American wars in the region, (on such a basis) should they proceed, would be more justified than Islamic terrorism because...? Right, "Don't worry Islamic peoples, this won't be a 'crusade'", it's just an imposition of our ideological preference through force. Of course, just like the crusades of the middle ages, the underlying "secondary" goal will be economic benefit - the difference is that in today's world, economic benefit comes through "friendship", not "conquest". However, if one may be required before the other may be realized, these ass%&*#s seem to think that the ends justify the means, and, well, 'fraid not. The authors of this garbage don't care about 'freeing' anybody. Sounds to me as though they want to colonize them in their own image; a state that the Americans weren't willing to accept back in 1776, but that, no doubt, they will expect to be accepted with full cooperation by their new democratic 'allies'. After all, if a freely elected party comes to power in the region whom they don't like, what's to stop them from going in again? Anyone who was truly concerned with the integrity of 'freedom' in the world would consider this a far too slippery slope to be openly considering.
Sanctions are what created the humanitarian situation in Iraq, but the method of 'freeing' Syria should involve the same sorts of sanctions? It's incoherent imperialist power politics at its worst and methinks that if this is the tact that they are going to take over the next few years, we're going to be seeing dire consequences for their actions before everything is said and done.
In the one piece, they referred to Bush's campaign against the 'Axis' and Iran in particular as a "Liberation theology". And, given that characterization, the American wars in the region, (on such a basis) should they proceed, would be more justified than Islamic terrorism because...? Right, "Don't worry Islamic peoples, this won't be a 'crusade'", it's just an imposition of our ideological preference through force. Of course, just like the crusades of the middle ages, the underlying "secondary" goal will be economic benefit - the difference is that in today's world, economic benefit comes through "friendship", not "conquest". However, if one may be required before the other may be realized, these ass%&*#s seem to think that the ends justify the means, and, well, 'fraid not. The authors of this garbage don't care about 'freeing' anybody. Sounds to me as though they want to colonize them in their own image; a state that the Americans weren't willing to accept back in 1776, but that, no doubt, they will expect to be accepted with full cooperation by their new democratic 'allies'. After all, if a freely elected party comes to power in the region whom they don't like, what's to stop them from going in again? Anyone who was truly concerned with the integrity of 'freedom' in the world would consider this a far too slippery slope to be openly considering.
Sanctions are what created the humanitarian situation in Iraq, but the method of 'freeing' Syria should involve the same sorts of sanctions? It's incoherent imperialist power politics at its worst and methinks that if this is the tact that they are going to take over the next few years, we're going to be seeing dire consequences for their actions before everything is said and done.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II