During the earlier part of this century Britain colonized other coutries in the name of Civilization( making the coutry more civilized ). But covertly and in a well organized way they drained colonies resources. At present America is doing the same thing in the name of Freedom( Bringing freedom to the other countries from so called dictators). But as usual they are mainly focused on the resources. History says human beings exploit other human beings and that is what happening now. I need your views on this topic. Please open up and speak Regards Siva
I wouldn't call what the US is doing 'colonizing'. That term does not fit. Nation building, setting up puppet governments, etc. would be more accurate. Anyway... Look at the timing of all these events. It seems there three options considering the events that led up to our current situation: A) Current military initiatives are in response to and because of a perceived security threat. B) Current military initiatives are for other purposes (perhaps oil) but where done with the timing and coordination to make it appear otherwise. C) Current military initiatives are part of an large idealogical plan to force various countries into a certain type of governmental rule. I believe a good argument could be made for any of these scenarios. It is likely a mix of all three. Option C is the only option that without question is at play and has no refutation. For this reason, I see it as the greater reason. Are any of these options valid cases for military action? In my view, only A. For this reason, I am extremely critical of the case made by the US to attack Iraq. In short, I think it has less to do with resources and more to do with an idealogical position. The position that "freedom" (Bush's version) is to be spread to the entire world. This possibility needs no further evidence than the speech we will hear tonight.
We didn't rebel because England was draining our resources. Read the Declaration of Independence. It describes pretty clearly our reason for breaking away. Also read Edmund S. Morgan's "The Birth of the Republic".
Oxygen, who gave the US permission to invade other countries in the name of Freedom. When a country is waging war against it's enemies there will be for sure some secret motives. Draining the resource in the name of Freedom is utterly unacceptable. The tables will revolve one day and the assualters will be punished severly. I don't mean US here. Who so ever is pre-emptively striking other countries with illusions will be punished may be today or tomm' or even after a century. But everything what US is doing right now have to be answered to their people. Do you think people in US agree to this agression. Even the 9/11 family victims will not agree to it. Regards Siva
Viv, I wasn't arguing that. We all have our own beliefs as to why we're over there. What I was contradicting was your implication that we tossed off English rule because they were draining our resources. The colonists had no problem providing raw materials to England and buying their manufactured goods in return. That was how the Imperial economy stayed alive. It was more about something similar that happened in Kansas awhile back where the state capitol was passing laws designed to benefit the metropolitan part of the state but was hurting the agricultural part. The farmers lodged their legal protests with the state, but the governor blew them off, essentially telling them that if they couldn't make it as farmers they should move to the city. Even the feds were insisting that they had better things to do until the farmers brought up the Declaration of Independence as their grounds for preparing to secede from the state of Kansas and form a new state. (Must have been some shitty conditions for secession to come up in a serious vein.) THEN the feds got involved and defused the whole thing by working it out between the two groups. The farmers, as I recall, pretty much came out of it with most of what they'd wanted.
Oxygen, Thanks for your reply. Understood your point. Forget about the internal matters in US. Tell me why US is always assuming herself that it can bring freedom by force. Bringing freedom by Force will not work in long terms. I truly beleive ,the way Indian democracy born ( non violence) is the only sustainable way. Each and every country will have her own desire upon it's fate. It's their will and wish. They can decide on which policy they can adapt to. Not on American dictatorship. Whole through the history America has divided a country and ruled. E.g., Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (Sunni,Shia, Kurds). American tax payers are responsible for their goverment actions across the world. Any country can't be a super power for long, history says so. The country which dictates the world affairs will be dictated soon. Pls. don't think that I hate america. I used to love America when Clinton was the president, even when Bush attacked Afghanistan. But this attack against Iraq is completely faulty on all ways and i have to say American tax payers are responsible for this action.
What if you avoid paying taxes? Or if you did not support the war? Or never liked or voted for Bush? Still personally responsible? Say Kerry is elected. Still responsible? Are the germans still responsible for WWII? I think its more fair and accurate to blame the administration. The US population did not vote to go to war.
Any where in the world public will never vote for war, i too agree. But still they are responsible for their represented goverment actions. If the administration is bad or good it's the people who have decided their fate. They can overthrow the government if they feel it has mislead them. Why did the American public didn't do this, because the majority still agrees to the present administration.
Well, when we invaded Iraq, the president stated his reasons pretty clearly. He said that we were invading Iraq because we thought it probable that they had not, and would not eliminate their WMD and/or WMD programs as they had promised, and that as a fringe benefit, it was nice to be able to free a people from a terrible dictator while in the neighborhood.
To the same dictator America was supplying arms and ammunitions earlier. Well, let's forget that case. America and Britain invaded Iraq because they beleived that Iraq possesed WMD, but where are they now. Now Americans are every where in Iraq why can't they find it if they beleived it was there. Once again if Americans think they have to bring freedom from dictators then there are so many dictators in line. why not them? , why onby Iraq? . The answer is very clear Oil. Americans have to accept the truth and they have to pay the exact price for the OIL to quench their thirst. Not by invading other countries in the name of Freedom. Freedom is a holy word and Americans have made the word naked. :m: Siva
We invaded Iraq because, based on the totality of the history, there was a significant probability that Hussein had not destroyed all of his WMD and/or WMD programs. Bush had no choice but to take that probability seriously since the weapons are so lethal. If the odds of proposition A being true are 25%, and the consequences of proposition A being true are ghastly, it is appropriate for one to act aggressively to protect oneself from that 25% probability. The fact that in retrospect the 25% probability didn't come up is irrelevant. Hussein had had the weapons, had lied about them, and had used them, and the only open question is how recently. Maybe because we have not been trying for a dozen years to get those other countries to eliminate their WMD. You are simply not listening. The president stated, and I stated in this thread that the motivation for the invasion was WMD. The prospect of freeing a nation from a terrible dictator was just a fringe benefit. WMD not oil.
In a democratic republic the majority doesn't overthrow their government if they believe it has mislead them. That is what the election process for.
I've been in many peoples homes and I've not met one who was a true representaive of their gov't. People are people. The rich rulers of any country dominate its trade and foreign relation policies. Isn't this the case in India? The US Gov't is approx. 600 elected folk, I cannot think of one who is not wealthy. Every 2 years a population of 300+ million get to 'vote' to change a few of them. Every 4 years they get to 'vote' on the most powerful. Regarding 'in the name of freedom', you must be relatively young. America has been crushing many countries for decades using that tired old horse. I would refrain from blaming Americans. Most Americans have no idea what their gov't is involved in. There is no real oversight of the military and the press is seemingly blind,deaf, and decidedly dumb on any analysis that puts the ideals of Old glory to shame. America has cornered the market on doublespeak, so I don't see how you are suprised that freedom means 'do what we say or suffer'.
