>I don't necessarily think that, and my doubts about the "noble" urges
>driving the war talk have been posted. But for all the state violence the
>USG can be accused of, it cannot be compared to a dictatorship like
>Saddam's. The American experience, for all the injustice, is still a
>progressive one, an observation that I know will cause those who view this
>country as a Nazi state to shake their heads in contempt.
Not me. I think there's a lot that's valuable in U.S. society, though there's lots that's truly awful too.
> As I said
>regarding Afghanistan (when many here were appalled that the Taliban and
>al-Qaeda were met with force), you could've made the same case during WW2. I
>mean, Jim Crow was still in force, including the military. Native Americans
>and African slaves were no less dead. US troops had plundered Nicaragua. And
>many American businesses worked with and supported the German fascist state.
>So what right did the US have to fight and help overthrow the Nazis (and the
>imperial Japanese)?
Because they were fascist states trying to dominate the world. They were true global threats. SH's Iraq is not.
>You know, every once in a great while an imperfect society can do good
>against a worse society. I'm not saying that the Bush policy toward Iraq is
>righteous (and haven't said it), but a case could be made if indeed
>democracy and freedom were the issue. That's all I'm saying.
But they're not, precisely because the U.S. is leading the charge.
>And by the way, Saddam may be a piker when compared to over two centuries of
>US violence, but he's killed more than the death squad masters in El
>Salvador and Guatemala did,
And most of those casualties happened while SH was Washington's friend, from the Commies he hanged with the help of lists drawn up by the CIA, to all the people killed in the pointlessly bloody war with Iran. So if he's guilty, so are his imperial masters.
Doug