Military occupation of other countries? While I don't necessarily agree with Bush's methods, what about the right to life and liberty? The truth is there are regimes out there whose main goal is to take threaten those rights. Nazi-Germany was motivated by thoughts of manifest destiny and power rolling into peaceful neighboring nations. I hardly think our situation can be seen as exactly (or mostly) the same.
What about death squads, support of Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, napalming of Cambodia killing 2 million civilians, support of an oppressive South Vietnamese regime, an attempted invasion of Cuba, the overthrow a democratic government that was trying to help the people of Chile, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, a CIA agent in Panama taking control of the country, and then a subsequent invasion that killed 2000 people, overthrowing of a government in Laos, Libya, Grenada, the Philipines, Afghanistan, the destruction of half the medical supplies of Sudan and two invasions of Iraq? I would say that most of those countries were democratic, or improving on what little democracy they had (Timor, Chile, Panama, Cuba etc) or were no threat to other countries, and none of the United State's business. In many cases, intervention just made the situation worse. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua - I mean, 'death squads,' come on!, El Salvador, Sudan, Libya, Philipinnes) America has been involved in 47 foreign military engagements since world war two, and I seriously doubt that many of them were motivated by good intentions. Maybe trying to keep another country a consumer of American goods, a place for cheap labor, and a fear by big business of the population of countries gaining some sort of basic rights.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering
Slashdot Mirror
Military occupation of other countries? While I don't necessarily agree with Bush's methods, what about the right to life and liberty? The truth is there are regimes out there whose main goal is to take threaten those rights. Nazi-Germany was motivated by thoughts of manifest destiny and power rolling into peaceful neighboring nations. I hardly think our situation can be seen as exactly (or mostly) the same. What about death squads, support of Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, napalming of Cambodia killing 2 million civilians, support of an oppressive South Vietnamese regime, an attempted invasion of Cuba, the overthrow a democratic government that was trying to help the people of Chile, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, a CIA agent in Panama taking control of the country, and then a subsequent invasion that killed 2000 people, overthrowing of a government in Laos, Libya, Grenada, the Philipines, Afghanistan, the destruction of half the medical supplies of Sudan and two invasions of Iraq? I would say that most of those countries were democratic, or improving on what little democracy they had (Timor, Chile, Panama, Cuba etc) or were no threat to other countries, and none of the United State's business. In many cases, intervention just made the situation worse. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua - I mean, 'death squads,' come on!, El Salvador, Sudan, Libya, Philipinnes) America has been involved in 47 foreign military engagements since world war two, and I seriously doubt that many of them were motivated by good intentions. Maybe trying to keep another country a consumer of American goods, a place for cheap labor, and a fear by big business of the population of countries gaining some sort of basic rights. "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering