Posted on 02/22/2003 3:37:46 PM PST by political_chick
When History Is "Bunk
When history is used not as a lesson, but rather as a diversion to further an agenda, that history is bunk. Most Americans are taught to learn the lessons of history to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Now, the Liberals want to use the "history" of American involvement with Iraq during the 1980’s to blame the United States for creating the monster that Saddam Hussein has become, and ultimately to discredit the present American Administration. It is the typical Liberal ideology that refuses to accept the notion of personal responsibility and places blame on anyone or anything except the perpetrator, carried to the extreme.
The idea of America cozying up to Iraq after the Iranian revolution and the radicalization of the Iranian regime was trumpeted about by Democrats and Liberals soon after President Bush’s "Axis of Evil" speech. The timing for such "revelations" concerning America befriending Saddam was premature then, but now the Liberal’s are determined to make another go of it.
Forgetting the history for a moment, and for the sake of argument, deciding that such friendship was a terrible mistake; how does that affect the present American course of disarming Iraq and wanting a regime change? It does not. How could it? No matter how far you take the accusations of American complicity in Iraqi brutality during its war with Iran or even its gassing of its own people during the 1980’s, America’s present course becomes more reasonable rather than not. After all, if America created a monster, who besides the United States is more answerable to end that creation?
Perhaps the reason to bring up America’s involvement with Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War is simply to discredit our present leaders and American foreign policy as a whole. The foes of America’s determination to rid the planet of tyrannical regimes that possess weapons of mass destruction want to shift the blame for the attacks on, and the threats to America. From the terrorists and tyrants to America herself. If we assume responsibility for the world hating us, it follows that we and not they need to change our ways.
Of course, there needs to be a tremendous leap of faith to conclude that the recent history of the United States is the cause of the world’s woes. America gives more in foreign aid than any other country, and asks for the least in return. Claiming that we need to give more misses the point and assumes that not giving justifies hate and violence. Even those on the far Left would have to admit that not giving a handout does not validate hate and violence, then again some might. Nevertheless, the bottom line is uncomplicated for them, so long as there are have-nots and America is perceived as having, America is at fault.
America’s real or imagined missteps in past foreign policy decisions is being used to further the Left’s agenda to diminish American sovereignty and nationalism in favor of a more sensitive approach to present and future foreign relations. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq, a more sensitive approach will only defer a catastrophe it will not deter it. What the Left fails to understand, or more precisely, what the Left purposefully ignores is the present reality and the reality under which the United States made foreign policy decisions in the past.
During the Second World War, America was allied with Russia. It made a whole lot of sense at the time. However, knowing what transpired following the Allies victory it would follow that we should not have stood up to the Soviet Union during the Cold War because, after all, we "created" the Soviet Union by allying ourselves with them in World War II. Obviously that is an absurd argument, but no less absurd than the argument that we need to rethink our strategy of opposing Saddam Hussein’s regime because we "allied" ourselves with Iraq in its war with Iran.
During the 1980’s in Afghanistan, the United States gave aid and support to the Afghan fighters in their quest to push the Soviet Union out of their country. It made a great deal of sense at the time, and it worked. However, America is now faulted for "abandoning" Afghanistan after that war. We left and did not impose our will on the Afghan people, and allowed them to choose their future for themselves. They made their horrible choices because we did not force ourselves and our way of life on them. In retrospect, many lives and no doubt many more will be lost because we did not stay and force a different form of government to emerge after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
However, to blame America for the rise of the Taliban requires a huge leap of faith in which you must discard reality, facts, and common sense. You must assume that The Afghans, like the Iraqi regime are not responsible for themselves or their conduct. Only America is. Saddam Hussein was created by us because we became his friend. Because we were his friend, he created a brutal despotic regime that caused the deaths of nearly two million people and amassed chemical and biological weapons, some of which he used to murder thousands of his own countrymen.
On the other hand, the Afghans, or more precisely the Taliban was created because we were not their friends. The Afghans created a brutal, tyrannical regime that tortured and murdered its citizens, treated women as less than property, and became a haven for terrorists.
It seems if you are America, you just cannot get it right in the eyes of some.
Paul can be contacted at paul.walfield@cox.net
"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
If this is true could we say that Saddam perceived this as the "green light" to invade?
Liberals usually get their facts right and their conclusions wrong. The point the writer above was making is that we should end Saddam's regime. It is irrelevant whether 'we' created it, we now have to end it for our own national survival.
That liberals seek to stop any confrontation with Saddam on the grounds that 'we created this monster,' shows that they are more interested in finger-pointing than getting to the point.
Needless to say, Ronald Reagan did not 'create' Saddam Hussein. Liberals only say things like that because they know they can't win an argument about the present. People are aware of present-day facts, so it's very difficult to distort present-day facts. So instead, liberals reach back twenty years and pull facts out of context, and then if you pick up that argument with them, they can go round and round with you, while the average person just watches and scratches his head and says, "Wayall, ah don't know who's rahght hayar!"
Dear Average Person: It's easy to tell who the deceivers are. They're the people who always change the subject from the main issue. And the main issue is: do we let Saddam get nukes, or do we stop him?
Great "logic" there, leftoids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.