Isn't it interesting that a f...,
2003-11-26 18:01:33
| Main |
the hollow economy...,
2003-12-01 14:26:47
the problem, due respect and all:
is that you can't hope to engage in discussion of policy with people who can't get their facts straight, let alone pretend that their own actions never happened. Who in the present Bush administration, most of them complicit, has apologized for supporting Saddam's actions against the Kurds, his aquistition and use of chemical weapons, etc.?
When the British urged Truman and then Eisenhower to intervene against Mossadeq the hope wasn't to "defeat Communism", the hope was to secure British oil concessions in Iran. Communism, in this instance, was little more than a bogey hoax cooked up by the Brits to ensure US action, whom, after considering it further, decided the oil concessions were too imporant to allow a democratic government to control them (god forbid should someone sell the Russians oil).
The obvious policy alternative, if one prefers democracy over communism, is to support democracy, not visciously attack it.
Likewise, what you should not do is support some form of violent authoritarianism against some alternative form of violent authoritarianism. If one prefers democracy to fascism and the population of some remote third world nation elects a communist, or vice-versa, the judicious policy would be to continue to support democracy, which in most instances might mean otherwise allowing the poor fools to democratically throw themselves off into whatever void they prefer. It's hardly any of our business to begin with - authoritarian states still need trade, and if by necessity you need to trade with an authoritarian government it would be better, really, if it wasn't one of your own making. At least if you support democracy.
