Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is this a war of liberation?

  1. Mar 21, 2003 #1
    As I see it, this war is not so much about Al Qaeda or because of a direct threat to the United States.

    The United States and its allies is waging war to liberate Iraq from its dictator, bring democracy to the region and eliminate weapons of mass destruction which might do harm to America's allies in the Middle East or (indirectly) reach the hands of terrorist groups.

    I think this war of liberation it is justified. The Left used to love and romanticize wars of national liberation. They worshipped such figures as Che Guevara who was prepraed to take the revolution worldwide. They loved Cuba for its willingness to send troops to Angola to help the national liberation struggle there.

    The Left should also like President Bush's idealism and desire to bring democracy to countries suffering under dictatorship. But of course they don't. The far left has always defended tyranny against capitalist democracy.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 21, 2003 #2
    If there was an multinational consensus consisting of dozens of nations to bring representative government to the world's people, then I would be for that.

    However, with the current expressed motives of defense against Iraq and terrorists, it is a different case. People just aren't buying that crap, and it seems like bullying. This, combined with the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is setting a bad Worldscape (copyright 2003 Dan ). In a few years or so, if the things that I foresee happening to not come to pass, I think that I will admit that I was wrong.
     
  4. Mar 21, 2003 #3
    Biological weapons = Bug bombs (copyright, N_Quire)
     
  5. Mar 22, 2003 #4
    J. Stalin also said that it was war to liberate the people when he attacked Finland 1939.
     
  6. Mar 22, 2003 #5

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Fins had not repeatedly rebelled against their leadership. The Fins fought back against the Russians. The Fins did not greet Russian soldiers with great joy and enthusiasm. Sixteen percent of the Finnish people had not fled Finland out of fear and repression before the Russians invaded.

    Njorl
     
  7. Mar 22, 2003 #6

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Isn't there an agreement or something for
    mentors not to express extreme and radical
    views on the forums. Your messages are too
    much really !

    Live long and prosper.
     
  8. Mar 22, 2003 #7
    I agree with this much at least of what you said. Indeed it was ironic that after all his posturing about weapons of mass destruction that in the final moments before the attack Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum to avoid war by leaving Iraq. Doesn't that final ultimatum prove the lie? All along it was never about WMD. It was only about removing the leader of another country that Bush disapproved of. If it was really about WMD then why give an ultimatum to the leader of another country to go into exile or face an invasion? If Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction that would not change by Hussein leaving.

    Naturally the US and its allies will now invade the following countries to liberate them from their dictator(s):

    Saudi Arabia
    Syria
    China
    North Korea
    Kuwait
    Zimbabwe
    Burma
    Libya
    Oh dear, my hand is getting tired.

    Laser Eyes
     
  9. Mar 22, 2003 #8
    Lazer Eyes,
    Your list of countries does illustrate a number of problems which need to be tackled, but military force is only one of many options and is a last resort even for President Bush.
    Bush and his idealogues would like to see a democratization of the entire middle east and they, perhaps naively, think the liberation of Iraq will create a desire for freedom and democracy throughout the region.
    Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and a few others in the region are our allies so they should not be transformed by force. The Americans are prepared to accept a slower transformation in those countries.
    Everyone wants Mugabe to go but an invasion is not necessary. In that part of the world, the peaceful transformation and democratization of South Africa and Kenya are powerful examples. But I don't think too much violence from Mugabe will be tolerated. Maybe the United Nations has a role there.
    North Korea will be dealt with by diplomacy.
    Each problem has its own solution. This is a cyncial world of realpolitik where self-interest is important. Because we invade Iraq does not mean we will invade and overthrow every dictator.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is this a war of liberation?
  1. Liberals Negative? (Replies: 12)

  2. Belgium liberals (Replies: 33)

  3. Liberal fascism (Replies: 130)

Loading...