Originally posted by Arrian
Um, hows about a policy that neither specifically supports such regimes, nor advocates the use of US military force to remove such regimes and replace them with democracies?
How freaking hard is that sort of realism? Support for democratization doesn't have to mean tanks & bombs. Until rather recently, such a thing was a radical theory. Sure, without the tanks & bombs, progress is slower - the regimes will remain in place. At the same time, you don't end up being responsible (in whole or in part) for the type of cluster**** currently happening in Iraq.
-Arrian
Um, hows about a policy that neither specifically supports such regimes, nor advocates the use of US military force to remove such regimes and replace them with democracies?
How freaking hard is that sort of realism? Support for democratization doesn't have to mean tanks & bombs. Until rather recently, such a thing was a radical theory. Sure, without the tanks & bombs, progress is slower - the regimes will remain in place. At the same time, you don't end up being responsible (in whole or in part) for the type of cluster**** currently happening in Iraq.
-Arrian
Iraq maybe a cluster**** but the hypocrites, with their Saudi connections(im talking big deal DC types, not you Arrian) , who blame the neocons for this 'change' of orientation from the good old days of Reagan and Bush Sr and Nixon, are talking so much bunk. Its esp ironic coming from folks who were all on board for the support of the Shah, which arguably is still the root of our problems in the region.
Comment