what is the MATTER with you people?

(~_^)

db080113 - doonesbury - what is the matter with you people

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. @matt – “Because no American has ever started a war (in part) because (he thought) someone tried to kill a member of his family.”

    even if your example is true, and i have no idea whether or not it is, that’d be just one instance. blood feuds and family honor are a way of life in the middle east. read up on ’em.

    Reply

  2. I’m not disputing it. But whatever Iraqis have contributed to their own misery, the US role in that country (and the region) has been a disaster. We deliberately exacerbated (admittedly pre-existing) ethnic and religious tensions in Iraq, as empires have always done in their colonies. Arming Shia death squads (the so-called “Salvador Option”, named after another instance of glorious US intervention) did not contribute to peace and tranquility, nor was it intended to.

    We use one hand to point and laugh at Iraqis for slaughtering each other, and use the other to hand them the weapons needed to do so.

    We have no business pointing at anyone but ourselves.

    Reply

  3. @matt – “the US role in that country (and the region) has been a disaster.”

    i won’t argue with that. i don’t think we should be in iraq or afghanistan. and i never thought we should’ve been.

    Reply

  4. hbdchick – i don’t think we should be in iraq or afghanistan. and i never thought we should’ve been.

    I’m aware of that. But your criticism of intervention consistently takes the general liberal/paleocon anti-war line (which is implicit in the Doonesbury strip): that US “failures” in Iraq are due to Iraqis’ (innate?) lack of virtue. They’re too tribal, they don’t want democracy/freedom, they aren’t grateful enough to us, whatever. (Just like “the South Vietnamese” were too lazy/scared to fight for “freedom”).

    All of this presupposes that the US goal was to promote democracy in Iraq in the first place. A cursory overview of US foreign policy in the Middle East provides no evidence for this assumption, and much against it.

    If U.S. democracy-promotion efforts in the Middle East actually existed, then we might be able to have a fruitful argument about whether they are likely to succeed. But since they don’t, that argument is a waste of time.

    As Gandhi said of Western Civilization, U.S. democracy-promotion in the Middle East would (or might) be a good idea.

    Reply

  5. @matt – “All of this presupposes that the US goal was to promote democracy in Iraq in the first place.”

    i’ve never supposed that.

    you’re making a lot of assumptions about me and what i think. watch it. i suggest you ask me first going forward.

    Reply

  6. My apologies if I misinterpreted you. I would be interested to know why you think the administration intervened. If it wasn’t to promote democracy in the first place, why does it matter whether or not Iraqis are genetically capable of democracy?

    Reply

  7. @matt – “…why does it matter whether or not Iraqis are genetically capable of democracy?”

    oh, i’m just interested in the question of why (liberal) democracy arose in just one area of the world, and why it only works in that area of the world. (guess that’s two questions.) i’m not a policy analyst. i leave that to…whoever’s pretending to analyze policies.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s