| ----, et al... On television and on the Internet, I witnessed a number of scenes of jubilation among Iraqis yesterday. Despite what you may think, I -- and, I'm sure, most of those of my ilk -- was not angry or disappointed. I'm glad to see Saddam go, I'm glad to see the Iraqis happy, and I'm glad to see American soldiers not getting shot at, but being welcomed. However, my feelings toward American policy and policy makers is the same. The US has historically used the military to further its economic imperialism. The US has historically meddled, overtly and covertly, in the foreign affairs of other countries. The US has historically supported violent, oppressive regimes to the detriment of the people of those nations. Why should the people of the world believe that the US is doing otherwise right now? Many Americans don't believe we are doing otherwise right now. We have seen the way the US has lost its desire to do much of anything (except chase bands of guerillas in the mountains) in Afghanistan. Why? Because the situation there is more complex, and the American attention span is so short. Thousand-year-old tribal feuds cannot be settled in a few days. Vastly different cultures and customs cannot be brushed aside, nor can they be understood overnight. Sure, I want America to help the downtrodden of the world. I just don't think sending in tanks and bombs is the way to do it. This doesn't mean that I think that everyone will lay down their arms and join hands to sing "Kumbayah." Only that dimplomacy, negotiation, and international pressure are preferable to war. ----, you will throw Chamberlain, Churchill, Hitler and Hirohito at me here, but those are very different circumstances. Saddam was not about to take over the world with his drums of insecticide. As Josh said, he was turned back when he entered tiny Kuwait. Saddam was a vicious tyrant (is that better than "scoundrel"?), but the US may have created more instability in the region than he did. Jim |