Oh you kid!
Smirky the Chimp is at it again. In an attempt to fool the American public again, our fearless idiot is claiming that the Iraqi parliament's failure to elect a speaker is simply "another step on the road to freedom", instead of the sign of severe ideological and religious schisms and an inability to exercise any vision of representative democracy that it is. But wait, there's more! As a means of making sure that anyone over the age of 40? 35? 1? will make the functional connection between these new wars and Vietnam, Smirky went on to stress that our "training" of the Iraqi "security forces" continues apace, "so they can take responsibility for the security of their country". Isn't that what the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations kept saying about our treatment of the South Vietnamese army? In this case, the timeline runs a bit backwards, perhaps, since we started with a full military excursion into Iraq, but does anyone really think the Iraqi National Guard will be able to keep their nation peaceful without becoming a military junta? In the face of their parliamentary failure, I would certainly be more scared of unleashing a fully trained military on the political landscape of Iraq, not less.
It couldn't be that the Administration is hoping for a military coup to arise out of the democratic chaos, could it? I mean, who would want a repressively anti-dissension dictatorship to bloom out of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Isn't that what they had under Saddam Hussein? Oh, that's right, he was also anti-American; these new guys would be pro-American. That's much better. We like those kinds of repressive regimes, especially in the Middle East. I'm onto you, Smirky!
It couldn't be that the Administration is hoping for a military coup to arise out of the democratic chaos, could it? I mean, who would want a repressively anti-dissension dictatorship to bloom out of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Isn't that what they had under Saddam Hussein? Oh, that's right, he was also anti-American; these new guys would be pro-American. That's much better. We like those kinds of repressive regimes, especially in the Middle East. I'm onto you, Smirky!
posted by bryduck at 9:06 AM
2 Comments:
I feel a little uneasy about the Parliament, also. Then I remember we had the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses before we came up with our Constitution! I sure pray it works. I believe the Iraqi people deserve human rights just as every human does. Maybe if we pray...?
There are some huuuuge differences between mid-18th Century British North America and 21st Century Iraq, I would say. 1) For the most part, the colonies and the early nation were comprised mainly of 1 ethnic (if not religious) group--almost all colonists (with the dramatic and unfortunate exception of the slaves, of course) were British Empire-born, with the cultural heritage of a representative government. Iraq has 3 ethnic/religious groups that are highly separatist, all with a heritage of being oppressed. 2) The colonists were isolated by geography, reinforcing a sense of unity, or at least unity of purpose, among the rebels and early nationals. Iraq is not. 3) Our democratic experiment was therefore homegrown, with very little (if any) external input or causation. The Iraqis have had this thrust upon them by a military conqueror. Will they succeed? I dunno. No one other than the US ever has, for any considerable length of time, given these circumstances . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home