Secular Web Kiosk and Bookstore

[ Recently Published Articles | Editor's Choice | Featured Books | Search | Categories ]

Blame America First?

James Schaffner

G. L. Pierce recently wrote an editorial calling for all of us to "pay attention to the facts." I think Mr. Pierce needs to do some homework of his own before trying to sway us with distortions, rhetoric, and blatantly false assertions.

Pierce writes:

Firstly, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are hardly comparable to Hitler (and to a lesser extent, Stalin).

I'm not sure I understand. Ignoring bin Laden for the moment, it has been noted that Hitler killed millions of people in ethnic cleansing and attempted to take over all of Europe. Saddam Hussein killed millions of people in an ethnic cleansing, waged war against Iran, and attempted to take over Kuwait. I see many more similarities than differences here.

Pierce writes:

Hussein remained in power while slaughtering his internal enemies because the US 'overlooked' such actions since he was our ally.

Hitler remained in power because the US had an isolationist policy, and the British had a policy of appeasement. Again, I don't see much in the way of differences here.

Pierce writes:

When the US deposes a dictator, they NEVER install a democratic government in its place.

This demonstrates to me that Pierce has no grasp of history. None. Let's start counting the dictators the US has helped overthrow in the last 50 or so years. Hitler and Mussolini were replaced with not just democracies, but world-leading democracies. Noriega was ousted in Panama and replaced with a "constitutional democracy" according to the CIA World Factbook. Also according to the CIA Factbook, "...Grenada was seized by a Marxist military council on 19 October 1983. Six days later the island was invaded by US forces and those of six other Caribbean nations, which quickly captured the ringleaders and their hundreds of Cuban advisers. Free elections were reinstituted the following year." Sounds like the installation of a democracy to me.

Pierce writes:

The US isn't stopping terrorism, they're instigating it. Iraqis and Al Quaeda, etc. can't fight the US military. Their civilians are being killed by the US.

First of all, Al Quaeda is not a country. It is a movement of fanatical, fundamentalist Muslims. They have no civilians, so claiming that their civilians are being killed by the US is flat out wrong. Secondly, what civilians in Iraq are being killed by the US, and how? Is it the occasional bombing of a military target (such as an antiaircraft battery) by US and British jets patrolling the no-fly zone? I don't think so. Is it the sanctions that were imposed not by the US, but by the United Nations? That's funny, but Iraq was supposed to be selling oil to the world so that they could provide for their people. Where has that money gone? If children are starving in Iraq, we all have Saddam Hussein to thank for that, as he continued to spend that money on military buildup to the detriment of his population.

Pierce writes:

Oh, whatever happened to Afghanistan? The US left before finishing what it started. There is little law there, the warlords rule, and the US has been LOSING GROUND.

Maybe Mr. Pierce hasn't been paying attention, but the US still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, and is a large player in the rebuilding of that country. Yes, there is still some lawlessness, and it will take time before order is completely restored. After all, except for the Taliban, Afghanistan has been ruled by warlords for hundreds of years. However, rather than complaining about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, perhaps Mr. Pierce would like to volunteer some ideas as to how to bring all sides together and restore law and order there.

Pierce writes:

And of course "leaving Bin Laden alone" didn't work. He wasn't left alone! The US only "left him alone" AFTER destroying his people and creating the hatred.

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Who are Bin Laden's people? The citizens of Saudi Arabia? If I'm not mistaken, aren't they still a Muslim kingdom? Haven't we been friendly with Saudi Arabia for a long time? Or are we talking about Afghanistan? We didn't even go into Afghanistan with the aim of removing the Taliban until AFTER September 11th, when our own innocent civilians were brutally attacked. The Soviet Union is the country that invaded Afghanistan, which led to the rise of the Taliban and bin Laden, not the US.

Pierce writes:

Saddam Hussein is in NO WAY a threat to ANYONE right now. He's trying to run his country and that's that.

Tell that to Israel, who during Gulf War I had to endure Scud missiles being launched at it, unprovoked (Israel was not even a member of the original coalition to end Iraq's occupation of Kuwait). Tell that to Kuwait, who was temporarily annexed by Iraq in the early 90s. Tell that to Iran, who fought a long war with Iraq. And tell that to the Kurds, who have been slaughtered by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Pierce sounds like another member of the "blame America first" crowd, and seems to refuse to recognize that the only way to stop threats like bin Laden or Hussein is to kill them. If bin Laden had his way, we would all be living under the Taliban. And Hussein's track record speaks for itself.


Disclaimer: The Agora is something like a "Letters to the Editor" section in a newspaper. Agora articles represent the viewpoint of their authors and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the viewpoint of the Internet Infidels and/or the Secular Web. Articles are published primarily on the basis that they will be interesting to our nontheist readers. There are some rules to follow, however; see the Submission Guidelines and the Agora Submission Instructions.

Published:
  2003-02-25

Categories:
  Not Categorized.

Top