Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
"Promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime" does not mean liberate. All that means is that we want a democracy there.
|
Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I don't understand how these two sentences can be right next to each other.
pan: I don't find merit in the "You can't take care of that bully because you failed to take care of those other three bullies" argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so if i understand this "liberation" it seems in line with the american's "liberation" of
guatemala in 1953--no wait, that was overthrowing a government for united fruit
iran --ok no, that was to install the shah
chile 1972--no wait, that was to overthrow allenda and install a military dictatorship that "liberated" tens of thousands of chileans thereafter
the list is really quite long
somewhere in there is also
iraq, when the americans backed saddam hussein's ascension to power--no wait that was....as i see it, the americans already "liberated" iraq once, in their great and unique style.
please. the "liberation" argument is complete bullshit.
|
Because our past 'liberation' attempts were less than golden, we're not capable of wanting to do it the right way this time around?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Okay. They wouldn't be liberated if we controled their leader. If the US takes control of the Iraqi government for good, that means that Iraq was conqoured, not liberated.
|
Oops. I'll grant you that one. Would most likely be an improved situation, but it'd be imperialism and not liberation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
What if elections go as planned and the winner is a "supposed friend of ours" but once in power decides it is safer for him to align with Syria, Iran, China and so forth and demands we leave or he will truly open the floodgates to a true WAR? Or what if he treats his people worse then Saddam?
|
A definite possibility, but not evidence that liberation was a lie. That's what this imagination session was about.