This charge is just as easily and more accurately leveled at the right in their choice of which countries to help toward freedom and which not to help, and to what degrees. They are making the decision, taking it away from the people who arguably have a better claim to it: the subjugated people themselves.
The Republicans are the ones actually making the choice in selecting a country to do it in. Erring toward uses of soft power as opposed to hard power is what the Democrats want and that puts them in the same boat. Both parties are making that choice, they just have different means they prefer to use to achieve the end.
Noninterventionists like myself are the only ones not making the choice, because we leave the choice up to the people in those countries: revolt and enforce your own rights or suffer.
No no no no... You are confusing the issues here. The Bush/Cheney administration did not sit around the fireplace and decided which country we should liberate and which we don't. That might be the way some megalomaniac in the self-righteous Klinton/Gore camp did things.
The issue is not about which country to liberate. It is far more complicated than that. It intervines with the threat of Islamic fanatism, the threat of WMD, the threat of rogue state terrorism, the strategic energy sources and what kind of political system serve America's long term interest the best.
The rogue nations in the Middle East needed to be 'persuaded' not to help Al Qaeda getting WMD. Iraq is the tool to achieve that strategic goal. In that regards, the picture of Saddam in his underwear, doing his own laundy in his prison, did exactly just that. The result : 1. Saudi Arabia put Al Qaeda as public enemy number one. 2. Libya gave up WMD voluntarily. 3. The Lebanese are emboldened to kick out the Syrians. 4. Al Qaeda is the most hated organization worldwide and its butchers are being hunted down and killed off. 5. Arabs are beginning to realize that maybe, just maybe, that all their problems are not the result of Zionists and imperialists conspired oppression, but rather their own incompetent, corrupt government and oppressive religious backwardation.
The ramification is far broader than what the media has tried its best to distort and ignore.
The most detailed and most indepth, and also most credible source of information on this topic is in ,
http://www.americassecretwar.com/ Highly recommended. it gives you a completely different perpective into the issues.
As numerous Republican administrations did when they felt it was in the US interest to do so. As did Democratic administrations...
It is a tried and failed tactic to go back into history and dig up all the past events that the current administration has nothing to do with, and use those to bash America today.
Besides, thanks for muddying up my points. I was not originally talking about what the Republican or Democrate administrations have or have not done.
I was talking specifically about the 'democracy advocates' today being totally hypocritical when it comes to upholding what they claim to uphold. Today's Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are free from tyranny and the people are struggling against the remnants of the past tyrants. So where are those self-righteous 'advocates of democracy'? You would think that they would be falling over each other to help the citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, to build their struggling democracy.
But NOOOOOO.... These 'advocates of democracy' are so filled with blind hatred, that they are willing to betray their conscience and align themselves with the deposed tyrants!!
Not only they have done little to help the struggling people of Iraq to be free, they condemn loudly all the effort and sacrifice made to bring those people their basic freedom.
And YOU are basically saying that is OK!! Furthermore, you dragged out a laundry list of 'how do we know they want to be free?' , 'What right do we have to help them to be free from oppression?' I say, WTF is wrong with you?! LOL Are you so indulged in your intellectual mumbo jumbo that you have totally forsaken reality?
How do you know this? Granting it's true, do we have the right to help them? Because, the standard for the longest time in the world was essentially universal rights with local enforcement. It was only after Wilson that the idea of using military power to advance the interests and well being of noncitizens became a widely accepted policy. Staying out of foreign wars was given much more weight in matters of policy and honor. Granting we do have the right, should we exercise that right? Granting we should, are we in a position to exercise that right at a reasonable cost to us? Granting that, what's the best option or method to help the people in question?
How do I know that?!! What kind of idiotic question is that? You may prefer to remain stuck in some bygone era. Get with the time, my friend. Go talk to the Afghans. Go talk to the Iraqis. Go talk to the Lebanese. And you can explain to them what YOU think AND know that they don't have any use for freedom.
It is absurd and arrogant for you to presume that ONLY YOU want to be free from oppression and tyranny. It is also braindead to argue about this basic human need. It is insane!
Ask the Afghans, the Lebanese, the Iraqis, your theoretical questions.
Saying the world would be better without all tyrants doesn't negate the serious questions that arise when discussing how they are to be removed and democracy promoted. Denying that is basically saying the ends justify the means.
Whatever dude. Feel free to sit and ponder how many angels dance on the head of a pin too.
That's an entirely false dilema, denying the myriad of questions and options surrounding the issue of a tyrannical state. Not supporting one particular means of removing a tyrant does not translate to supporting that tyrant, just as not buying one brand of bread doesn't mean a wholesale rejection of all bread by a consumer. There are other options, and trying to fit the debate into a one or the other decision doesn't provide anything useful and isn't a true reflection of reality. And that false presentation of this situation is something I've heard far more often from the right than the left.
See my answer above.
