COMMENT:During the years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, there was a persistent debate in our country about whom the U.S. should support and with how much money and weapons.
On the one hand there were those, such a Presidents Carter and Kennedy, who thought we ought to back those who were most democratic. Others thought we ought to support those who were most anti-communist even if they were dictatorial.
Some people thought we should just mind our own business at home and let the world come to its own boiling points in various 'hotspots' without our stirring the pot. Such people were regarded as "isolationists" and they never enjoyed much success.
Now, we have the same debate going on about "islamo-terrorism." Do we continue to support people like Musharraf and the kings of Saudi Arabia even though they are despotic, but favorable to our policies? Or do we back those who are pushing toward greater democratization in the countries of the "Islamic world?"
It's my feeling that if we would stop meddling, we'd have no problem with terrorists. That's for what it's worth, which may be about what a dollar is worth today in the shops of Paris: darned little.
4 comments:
Coincidentally thats what Osama Bin laden said shortly after 9-11.
"If the US quits meddling, the attacks would stop"
That was before we spent a trillion $ on Iraq !!
Of course, we aren't meddling for shits and giggles. We're meddling because our way of life depends on our involvement in that part of the world.
Do you mean that maintaining your way of life (read: ability to purchase new gas guzzling cars every year, new plasma TVs, growing rampant materialism) is more important than the the rights of the people in this part of the world? And that the only way to maintain your way of life is to meddle in their affairs?
Tony: Yes, that's what I mean. (but why the accusatory tone?)
Post a Comment