Thursday, April 27, 2006

From antiwar.com
It’s not about democracy
Not a perfect article but the title is true
It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world...
What all this really means, of course, is ‘let’s conquer some weaker countries and turn them into US clones/satellites/protectorates/client states’ — just like present-day Germany and Japan.

I don’t seen any Captain America-like posturing/sabre-rattling towards ‘What’s an abortion or a few hundred thousand?’ Red China... because they can fight back.
The reality is that what the Bush administration calls a national security strategy is really a global security strategy... forcibly creating a better and safer world in America's image.
Wasn’t that the reason given for fighting World War II: that a chap called Hitler had similar ambitions for Germany?
But are we truly insecure because a military government exists in Burma? And there are at least 50 countries in the world that do not have democratically elected governments. Does that mean that there are 50 countries that are threats to the United States? Even so-called democratic countries – such as Egypt, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela – are democratic largely in name only.
And some among those 50 like Kazakhstan come in awfully handy for secret torture flights and prisons.

Race-hustling thug Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a chamber of horrors (ask the white farmers he forced out and is now asking to come back as they ran the country’s only profitable businesses) but is no threat. As was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And Hussein once worked for the US, which turned on him.
...it is not necessarily true that all future democracies will be friendly to the United States – especially democracies in Muslim countries. For example, if completely free and popular elections were held in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, the resulting governments would likely be anti-American.
Might that be because the US props up the state of Israel? Unlike Iran the US isn’t threatening to invade them if they don’t put down their nukes as King Abdullah says they should.
Even a supporter of President Bush's democratic nation-building policy...
Something he promised in 2000 he’d never do, unlike that scourge of the culture-warriors, that pot-smoking, draft-dodging (no, get a commission in the Air National Guard* and then weasel out of it like a real man and patriot), fellated Bill Clinton, functionally (because he was caged by a Republican Congress) a relatively better president and better conservative than the crew in power now**.

But, hey, ‘it’s a different world after 9/11’™, conveniently so as the Project for a New American Century had been planning this war for some time before that.
Decades of American support to Middle Eastern dictators helped create bin Ladenism.
Quite.
Contrary to what Bush says and claims – that we hate freedom – let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'
- Osama bin Laden
...there is also a "love/hate" relationship with America: many people love what we are, but they often hate what we do. That is, anti-American animosity is fueled more by our actions than by our existence, which has been confirmed by numerous Pew and Zogby polls, the Defense Science Board, and the 9/11 Commission.

In the final analysis, the threat to the United States is al-Qaeda and the radical Islamist ideology it represents and inspires, not the lack of democracy in the world.
No, rather, the US government is its own worst enemy and innocent people, from tens of thousands of anonymous Iraqis to New York office workers to Nick Berg, Tom Fox and Margaret Hassan, suffer because of it.

*The US Air Force’s version of the Territorial Army. ‘The draft’ = ‘national service’, that is, conscription.

**I haven’t forgotten that Lew Rockwell started his marvellous site to protest Mr Clinton’s bombing of Serbia.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment