^^^^^^^
CB: I think Kipling, the Liberal, would have seen Communism's alliance with colonial revolutions as increasing the white man's burden, just like Margaret Thatcher did .
^^^^^
Hell, Saddam is a product of support from both the Soviet Union and Europe (and the US) depending on who could help him most at various times. Same with folks like Noriega and other folks who "the natives" had little say in whether they were in power.
I'm not in favor of invading Iraq, but it's not because of some idea that would violate the democratic rights of Iraqis to self-determination.
^^^^^
CB: The Soviet Union isn't around for you to cop out on the current issue by redbaiting. You have not succeeded in throwing the SU up as a smoke screen to avoid the clear fact that the U.S. attacking Iraq is carrying the White Man's Burden in 2002.
What's your theory of self-determination ? Watch out, you might be imitating Lenin.
^^^^^^^^^
When South Africa bowed to the end of Apartheid, partly because of outside trade sanctions, I think that was a wonderful and justified violation of self-determination.
^^^^^
CB: The self-determination involved there was that of the Black South Africans. It was being violated by the settler colonialists. Opposing Apartheid supported self-determination in South Africa.
^^^^
And yes, I supported the military threat against Haiti to restore Aristide to the office to which he was democratically elected before being driven out by the death squads there. And supported the Kosovo intervention because Rugova and even the KLA was a far better alternative to Milosevic.
^^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, you are sounding like you are starting to bear the White Man's Burden. It comes with Liberalism, even left liberalism.
Howa about the U.S. invasions of Grenada ,Panama, Dominican Republic, Viet Nam, Korea ? U.S. contras in Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistann ? Did you support them ?
^^^^^^^ What would replace Saddam is highly relevant to the morality of any military or economic intervention.
^^^^^^^
CB: As a liberal democrat, what do you think of the democratic violations in Saudi Arabia ? Women can't drive there. They don't have corrupt elections. They just don't have elections. It's a monarchy. Does that burden you at all ? Any reason you are so antsy to get rid of the Iraqi government and not the Saudi government ? How about the Israeli government ? It has pretty much been denounced by most of the non-white world as thuggish. Oh, that's right you are concerned about what white men think.
^^^^^^^
The immorality of the current economic sanctions is that they don't create an alternative, but just make the Iraqi people suffer. Hussein was recently quoted as saying that invasion and his overthrow is a preferable policy to the current economic sanctions, since the Iraqi people would suffer less. I think Hussein is a hypocrite in how he milks the economy for his military but the point is right that lack of military invasion is not always better than non-military pressure.
^^^^^^^
CB: Maybe Saddam is a CIA agent ? Just kidding 'cause that's a "conspiracy theory" argument.
Why aren't "we" white men as concerned about total, I mean like they don't even pretend, lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia ? I know it has nothing to do with oil.
Israel ? Surely Sharon is as much of a genocidal war criminal as Milosovic ? Why no white man's invasion there ? Could it be that U.S. foreign policy and war is not aimed at improving human rights , but rather promoting U.S. imperialism, whether in Haiti, Yugoslavia, Israel or Iraq ?