"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
Assad, Mubarak, Arafat, Quadaffi, Khomenini, Al-Saud - you would be pissed off living under the likes of those.
To pick a couple of them:
Arafat: Yeah, and how much power as he got with the Israeli army breathing down his neck? (Please note, I'm not suggesting that Arafat would be the most benificient leader in the world or anything)
Khomenini: I assume you mean Khomeini, who (a) has been dead for the best part of 15 years, and (b) came to power on the back of a popular revolution against an American-backed dictator/monarch.
[House of] Al-Saud: who, of course, are not at all supported by the west, oh no, sirree, bob.
It is to the west's eternal shame that they allowed or even encouraged brutal strongmen (e.g. Saddam) to gain power in those regions. For too long, brutal realpolitik has meant the people of the middle-east have suffered under the likes of the aforementioned thugs.
Indeed. But what's with the past tense? Ranging a little further afield, we're busy propping up President Musharraf in Pakistan (y'know, military dictator, best nuclear proliferator for decades, 'n' all that) Not to mention a few nasty bits of work in central asia such as the government of Tajikistan. Oh, sorry, they were willing members of the coalition, and provided bases for US special forces acting in Afghanistan, so that's all right then.
The liberation of Iraq is the first stage towards letting the people of the middle-east decide themselves how they are governed.
I will happily accept that argument when Iraq holds its second set of free and fair elections. I sincerely hope I live to see it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 13:50 (UTC)Arafat: Yeah, and how much power as he got with the Israeli army breathing down his neck? (Please note, I'm not suggesting that Arafat would be the most benificient leader in the world or anything)
Khomenini: I assume you mean Khomeini, who (a) has been dead for the best part of 15 years, and (b) came to power on the back of a popular revolution against an American-backed dictator/monarch.
[House of] Al-Saud: who, of course, are not at all supported by the west, oh no, sirree, bob.
Indeed. But what's with the past tense? Ranging a little further afield, we're busy propping up President Musharraf in Pakistan (y'know, military dictator, best nuclear proliferator for decades, 'n' all that) Not to mention a few nasty bits of work in central asia such as the government of Tajikistan. Oh, sorry, they were willing members of the coalition, and provided bases for US special forces acting in Afghanistan, so that's all right then.
I will happily accept that argument when Iraq holds its second set of free and fair elections. I sincerely hope I live to see it.