How can any mentally sane individual deny that democracy, freedom of press, regional autonomy is better than dictatorship, autocratic centralism etc etc??
This is either insanity or intellectual disonesty.
IMO, Allanon should admit that America clearly has, by far, the best social project for Iraq.
But the regulars of the US Message Board should also recognise that nationalist resentment is also a legitimate factor in these kinds of conflicts.
I would like to make a little thought experiment so I can get my message across more clearly:
Lets imagine that in 1820 the US were invaded by an european foreign power in order to abolish slavery in America.
I can guarantee you all that the same people who post message after message supporting the US social experiment in Iraq would be the first ones to shout:
This is an outrage!!! No country has the right to meddle in Americas internal affairs!!
This is an affront to US sovereignty... Only the american people can decide if and when slavery should be abolished!!!
When their country is the invader, people tend to enphasize the superior social project presented by it.
But when their country is the invaded one, they tend to emphasise the nationalist opposition to the occupier.
This is a natural human tendency, theres no need to be ashamed of it and deny its existence.
Which one of these two VALID tendencies will triumph in Iraq?
No one knows the answer.
History has plenty of examples where the best project introduced by a less legitimate source (a foreign power) eventually triumphed, Germany and Japan being the most obvious examples.
But it has also many examples where nationalistic opposition to the best project brought about the victory of a less desirable but homegrown social project.
When I see Vietnams poverty and oppresion and compare them to South Koreas prosperity and freedom, I cant help but think the Iraqi people would be much better off if the social project proposed by the foreign power prevailed.
But then again, if the country invaded was <B>OURS</B>, maybe we would be doing exactly what those Iraqis (and other arabs) are doing.
The problem with these political message boards is that the participants feel they are soldiers of an army in a warzone where they cant give up a single inch of territory to the enemy army.
In other words, they are so stuck in this anachronic right/left mindset that they think they cant agree with a single thought expressed by the opposing army, otherwise they will be betraying their respective armies and will end up losing the war.
How pathetic is that?
I have already expressed my personal opinion about what I consider the most desirable outcome in Iraq to be (the paragraph in red).
But regardless of our personal opinions, lets not be childsh here.
It seems to me that theres nothing harder than separate our desired outcome for Iraq from serious (and impartial) political analysis just like small children cant separate their desires (sweets, ice-creams and soda) from objective reality (their parents income).
Thats why it is so hard for people here to recognise that these two tendencies (best project brought by an illegitimate source <B>VERSUS</B> nationalistic opposition to this project) are both valid arguments to a certain extent.
