Q: Was British rule bad or good for India? (was: The rhetoric
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:56:52 -0500
Russell Turpin wrote:
> Embarrassingly, I don't know enough of the
> relevant history to mount much of an argument
> either way. Does anyone want to take a stab
> at it?
>> "When important issues affecting the life of an individual are decided
>> by somebody else, it makes no difference to the individual whether
>> that somebody else is a king, a dictator, or society at large."
Obviously not true in all cases. If Clinton were pursuing this war with
Iraq, it would be accepted as an honorable and good thing by most of the
fearful whiners (yea, sue me Phil A.). I read the referenced article in
Arab news. I read this one too:
and this gets right to the point that this is anti bush 100%.
First folks -feared- the number of civ casualties would be huge, this
would spark WWIII, blah blah blah. While it's not over till its over,
the author of this article believes that the liberation of Iraq with low
civ casualties is a distinct possibility. If it happens, then it is
irrefutable that the Iraqi people will suffer fewer deaths at the hands
of the liberators than had they continued to be ruled by Saddam and
embargoed. But wait, the author is still afraid...
"Our fear is that the Bush administration, given its intentions, cannot
be trusted to get Iraq’s future right."
This comment has its roots in marxist, anti-capitalist, class warfare
partisian hogwash. And the terrible thing about it is the author is
probably not even aware that he has been brainwashed.
Most thinking folks in the USA see intrinsic value in one more country
becoming a democracy. It's a win-win scenario for everyone but the
dictator class. Will Iraq be ready for democracy in 2 years? 20 years?
I have no idea but it is an honorable goal. And it is unlikely that the
dictator (or the committee acting as a dictator) that replaces Saddam
will not be nearly as nasty and oppressive.
So yes, it does matter who is doing the slap down, whether it is
rational or not.