[Rhinoceros]
As an endnote, would it be extreme to take into account the fact that the
presence of Americans at some parts of the world is a source of death
and
distruction?
[Joe]
Like in Bosnia-Herzegovina and kosove, where we libnerated a Muslim
people being butchered by a neonazi thugocracy? Like in Somalia
where we were killed for attempting to feed a people and defend food
supplies against warlords who seized them in order to use hunger as a
terror weapon? Like in East Timor, where we applied the pivotal
pressure on Malaysia to halt the religious pograms and allow secession
and free elections? Like in kuwait, where we repelled a foreign invader
and restored a country to its inhabitants (although not to democracy -
that will, I hope, come in time)? Like in Afghanistan, where we have
wrested a country from a fundamentalist theocracy allied with an
international terrorist conspiracy and made representative government
possible once again? The US has restabilized much more than we
have destabilized, but they receive no credit and copious blame. This
is hardly balance.
[ben]
None of which has anything to do with his question, if you think about it.
The fact that in some parts of the world the US does good does not alter the
fact that in other parts it commits greivous wrongs - and much of what you
list is very open to interpretation. For example in Kuwait were we really
"repelling a foreign invader
and restoring a country to its inhabitants" or were we protecting one
dictatorship for another in order to protect our oil interests? Just by way
of example...
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT