During the cold war, when nuclear war was a real possibility and the world had The Sword of Damocles over our heads the U.S. was often criticized for supporting governments/groups with poor human rights records if those governments/groups were somehow valuable in stopping the spread of communism or who’s cooperation was a strategic advantage against the USSR.
When I see members of the left in strong support of governments and groups who have horrible human rights records in both how they govern their own people and how they treat others, be it Saddam's Iraq, or Hezbollah, I have to wonder, where is the strategic advantage to the left? Do they support terrorists because there is some advantage to global socialism?
There has to be a bigger reason out there, an explanation. How can almost no one on the left support a nation with rights for women, gays, and minorities, over people who deny rights for all three groups. Is it simply because the US supports Israel and supplies their military? Is their support of what amounts to barbarians by 20th century mind sets (though they are quite enlightened for the 8th century) just a natural extension of their vilification of all things American, and especially all things American under Bush?
I really do with I had an answer to this question, because if I did, I think I'd understand the motivation of a socialist better.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host
Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
|