14:16
Interview Transcript
Noam Chomsky: When Russia invaded Afghanistan we didn’t ask, “What’s the best option for Russia?” The best option for them is to get out. They have no right being there. So the best option is to get out.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we didn’t ask, “What’s the best option?” Like, “How should he deal with it?”
But when the west invades another country, all the values shift. The only question that arises is, “What’s best for the aggressors?” Well that’s an interesting sign of the deeply rooted imperial mentality, which of course goes back centuries and virtually dominates the intellectual and moral cultures.
But in the case of Iraq, we should recognize principles that we automatically accept when someone else is guilty of a crime. Aggressors simply have no rights. They have responsibilities, but no rights.
The primary responsibility, which is also written in the United States, is to pay massive reparations for the crimes that they have committed. That includes the invasion of course, includes the military sanctioned regime, the directors of the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, distinguished international diplomats, both resigned, because they regarded it as genocidal. It includes support for Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities, long after the end of the war with Iran, in fact even after the first Gulf War when President Bush the first [George W. H. Bush] authorized Saddam to crush the internal rebellions that probably would have overthrown him. Massive reparations are certainly called for.
Second responsibility is to hold the guilty accountable.
And the third responsibility is pay attention to the voices of the victims. And we have a pretty good sense of what they are; doesn’t enter into debate. So, if you look at the Presidential debates or the discussions or the options, one voice is missing--Iraqis.
And it’s not that the voice is not heard. The Pentagon in December [2007] released its latest study of focus groups all around Iraq, and it presented its report, as an optimistic report, said “There’s good news. Iraqis have shared beliefs. So, there is hope for reconciliation, contrary to what is said by people who think that the sectarian violence is out of control.”
And look down and see what the shared beliefs are. The shared beliefs are that the United States is responsible for the sectarian violence, and the other crimes, and that the invaders ought to pull out and leave the country for the Iraqis. That’s the shared believes. That’s the good news.
Well that position does not enter into discussion in the West. It’s reported, but it’s forgotten, because it doesn’t matter. We run the world. We own the world. We decide what’s best.
I can have my own opinion of what we have to do. Others can have their own equally uninformed opinions, including the CIA and military intelligence, but what matters is, what do Iraqis want? And we should give them the opportunity to construct policy.
By “Iraqis” I do not mean the government that is established in the highly protected, heavily protected U.S.-run Green Zone. It’s there, but that’s not the voice of Iraqis, anymore than the government that the Russians were protecting in Kabul in the 1980s was the voice of Afghans.
Those are the responsibilities. From then on, we have to follow those obligations.
I don’t think there is any good solution for Iraq at this point. The United States; it’s interesting to see that, although Americans and Europeans do not accept the principles that they profess, Iraqis do. When Iraqis attribute responsibility to the invaders for the military sectarian violence, they are simply following the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The Nuremberg Tribunal quite explicitly defined “aggression” in terms, which of course trivially apply to the U.S./British invasion of Iraq, and went on to say that aggression is the supreme international crime, diferring from other war crimes, in that it encompasses all of the evil that follows.
Well, in case of Iraq, that means it encompasses the murderous sectarian warfare, the ethnic cleansing, and so on, and Iraqis accept that. They accept the Nuremberg principles as the Pentagon study shows.
Americans and Europeans don’t accept that. We don’t accept that we, the aggressors, are responsible for all the evil that follows. And that again as a reflection of the imperial mentality. We can profess principles, but they only apply to others, not to us. We should live up to those principles.
We should mention finally that the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert [H.] Jackson, American prosecutor, had some eloquent words that he addressed to the tribunal. This is of course the tribunal that tried the worst Nazi war criminals. He said, we are handing these defendants of poison chalice, and if we sip from it, if we are ever guilty of similar crimes, we must accept the same judgment, or else we are declaring the trial to be false.
Well, European and American opinion, tacitly, is that the trails were a farce. It’s not the first time. Iraqis appear--maybe, probably don’t know it--they in fact are accepting the Nuremberg principles.
We should think about the possibility of living up to our own professed ideals, which means applying them to ourselves. Could be a very different world if we did that.
With regard to Iraq, Iraqis dispend knowledgeable correspondence like, say, Nir Rosen who has followed it very closely from the beginning, they often describe the American/British invasion as comparable to the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.
It is not clear there is any solution for Iraq. The only question is what’s the least worst solution at this point that. Nobody has a positive proposal as to what to do. But it’s up to Iraqis to be determine it.
The next major potential conflict with Iran could be more serious. If [George W.] Bush, [Dick] Cheney, maybe their successors, go on to attack Iran, or to permit Israel or a client state to attack Iran, that could be extremely serious. [IB] might be correct.
And it’s interesting to notice that, of course, Iranian opinion doesn’t matter, world opinion doesn’t matter, the world is appalled by the prospect. But it’s striking to see that American opinion doesn’t matter either. There have been careful studies of American and Iranian opinion on the outstanding issues between Iran and the United States, carried out by the most prestigious polling agencies. And the results are quite striking. Americans and Iranians fundamentally agree on the core issues, the nuclear issues. Large majorities, very large majorities in both countries agree that Iran has the same rights as other signers of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is, the right to nuclear energy, but not nuclear power.
The U.S. government rejects that, but the large majority of Americans accept it. More interestingly, large majorities agree that the entire region (including Iran, Israel) American forces deployed there should be declared a nuclear weapons free zone. That’s quite significant. If that happened, the crisis would significantly mitigate.
It might be overcome.
A very large majority of Americans, it’s about three to one, think that the United States should end threats against Iran and move towards normal diplomatic relations.
The opinions of Americans, shared by Iranians, is so remote from policy that these polls aren’t even reported. And of course the results never enter into political debate or discussion. Every viable political candidate, now every surviving candidate, believes that we must--as they put it, “keep all options on the table,” including threat of military actions against Iran. Even the threat happens to be a violation of international law. But it’s quite striking that they are all quite willing to take a position violation of international law and overwhelmingly opposed by the American population.
This is not the only case I should say. Take, say, the U. S. policy, now 45 years, of first, large-scale terror then economic strangulation of Cuba. Ever since polls have been taken, which is several decade, large majority of the Americans think that the United States should enter into normal relations with Cuba and end confrontation. But this just doesn’t enter policy.
Going back to Iran, if Iran and the United States were functioning democracies, meaning democracies in which popular opinion plays a significant role in determining public policy, then the confrontation would surely be mitigated and might be overcome.
That’s another serious problem in the West, internal. Are we going to be functioning democracies in which public opinion matters or not? It doesn’t only show up on international affairs.
Let’s take say the United States. Take domestic issues, for decades one of the leading domestic issues for the population has been the healthcare system, which is catastrophic, has twice per capital cost of other industrial societies and some of the worst outcomes, often third world standards, besides from 47 million people with no insurance and the many millions who are under insured.
So, the population doesn’t like this, naturally. And they have a preference, namely for a healthcare system, maybe something like extending Medicare for the whole population.
It’s very interesting to see how that’s handled in the intellectual culture and the media and the political system. As late as 2004, last election, this was occasionally mentioned, but it was regarded as politically impossible or lacking political support. Those are the words that are used. Only had the support of the large majority of the population, but that’s not political support.
In this election for the first time, 2008, it has become an issue, the Democratic candidates, at least, have put forth proposals which approach what the general population wants.
What has changed between 2004 and 2008, not public opinion? It’s the same. What has changed is that a major sector of the corporate system is now objecting to the irrationality, expense, inefficiency of the privatized healthcare system, namely manufacturing industry. General Motors says it cost them over $1000 more to produce a car in Detroit than it does across the border in Canada, where they have a functioning healthcare system.
When a major sector of corporate power enters the game, then it becomes politically possible. It tells us a lot about American democracy, as does the fact that there is no reporting on it. Try to find some mention of the reason for the change.
Well these are all internal problems in the West, serious ones. There are enormous problems, much more serious problems of functioning democracy elsewhere in the world of course, but even in the industrial West, there is plenty to be concerned about. These are also matters of significance. It’s a matter of significance, for example, that the poorest country in South America, namely Bolivia, had an election, which reached a level of authentic democratic participation that we can’t even dream of. The population was engaged. Majority issues were serious. People know what the issues were. They had been struggling about for years, not just on voting day. They elected someone from the own ranks who was committed to significant issues that the majority of the population decided were their own. That really doesn’t happen in Western election, certainly not in U.S. elections. Those are the things we should be concerned about too.
Recorded on: March 21, 2008
What is the best way forward in Iraq?
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The West, as aggressors in the region, have responsibilities, but not rights, Chomsky says.
March 25, 2008 | In Politics & Policy, World
Discuss
Sam Benson on March 26, 2008, 2:33 PM
Very insightful and well-spoken. You continue to be an unwavering source of rationality and I look forward to your next aditions to Big Think.
Sam Benson on March 26, 2008, 6:33 PM
Very insightful and well-spoken. You continue to be an unwavering source of rationality and I look forward to your next aditions to Big Think.
Mike Green on April 1, 2008, 7:33 PM
You are the American Hero, a freedom fighter like no other. I remember in 85, when I first heard your central arguments. Your views have been both inspirational and enriching, and my life is better as a result of careful study of your arguments. Thanks, as always, looking forward to more soon…
Mike Green on April 1, 2008, 9:55 PM
I really do not disagree, that was an accident!!!!!!!
Mike Green on April 1, 2008, 11:33 PM
You are the American Hero, a freedom fighter like no other. I remember in 85, when I first heard your central arguments. Your views have been both inspirational and enriching, and my life is better as a result of careful study of your arguments. Thanks, as always, looking forward to more soon…
Mike Green on April 2, 2008, 1:55 AM
I really do not disagree, that was an accident!!!!!!!
Benjamin Dozier on May 5, 2008, 6:29 PM
The claim that the opinions of Iraqis should matter, that they should have a say over affairs that affect their country, is a reasonable one. Yet without a functioning democracy, by definition, the goal of empowering the Iraqi people will never be achieved. Under Saddam, "Iraqis" in the plural had essentially no power; one Iraqi controlled the whole system. Clearly, today the situation is little better in terms of the power that the common people hold. While the US was clearly incorrect when it acted as the aggressor in an unjustified war, I feel we now have some responsibility to make sure or at least make an effort to ensure that democracy does in fact take root in Iraq. If we simply leave now, while we will be satisfying the short term desire of Iraqis to be free of American occupation, we will be doing nothing to further the long term goal of empowering the Iraqi populace. If we genuinely think the opinions of Iraqis matter, we should help them to establish some system where the will of the Iraqi people is translated into policy ie a democracy. That being said, at some point it may become clear that our capacity to do good is far less than our tendency to damage (maybe this is already true), and at this point we should pull out. But then the decision is not based on our perception of Iraqi opinion, but rather on our estimation of our effect on the welfare of Iraq.
Benjamin Dozier on May 5, 2008, 10:29 PM
The claim that the opinions of Iraqis should matter, that they should have a say over affairs that affect their country, is a reasonable one. Yet without a functioning democracy, by definition, the goal of empowering the Iraqi people will never be achieved. Under Saddam, “Iraqis” in the plural had essentially no power; one Iraqi controlled the whole system. Clearly, today the situation is little better in terms of the power that the common people hold. While the US was clearly incorrect when it acted as the aggressor in an unjustified war, I feel we now have some responsibility to make sure or at least make an effort to ensure that democracy does in fact take root in Iraq. If we simply leave now, while we will be satisfying the short term desire of Iraqis to be free of American occupation, we will be doing nothing to further the long term goal of empowering the Iraqi populace. If we genuinely think the opinions of Iraqis matter, we should help them to establish some system where the will of the Iraqi people is translated into policy ie a democracy. That being said, at some point it may become clear that our capacity to do good is far less than our tendency to damage (maybe this is already true), and at this point we should pull out. But then the decision is not based on our perception of Iraqi opinion, but rather on our estimation of our effect on the welfare of Iraq.
Tim Ray on May 5, 2008, 11:12 PM
hey The Snoo….like your icon…Che is my favorite executioner of homosexuals!! i agree we should have left Iraqi’s to Saddam….he knew how to torture!!! he knew how to eliminate the enemy!!
Robert Cusma on May 29, 2008, 10:31 PM
I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha.
To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what's popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels's)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky's model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil.
To chebyshev153, when you imply that this "democracy" is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi's still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn't commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there's no real idea of what the Iraqi's opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
Robert Cusma on May 30, 2008, 2:31 AM
I want to first thank Dr.Chomsky for raising such issues to sparks debates concerning critical issues. We can only hope that it leads to more public awareness. And also, excuse my use of wordiness and run-on sentences, I hope that my statements make some sort of sense, haha.
To address area51ejc, I think that the only way that legitimate foreign policy and normal diplomatic relations can be reached is by understanding what IS legitimate about our interests. If our national interests are in nuclear proliferation, ecology, economics, etc,(and understand WHY these are important to us) then I think it is easy to say that a question will arise: are our interests and Israels interests what’s popular to the Arab nations? If not, then why? I think that they disagree because they see a lack of legitimacy in our own national interests (perhaps benign, but still unshared in interest), yet there is a continuation of our (and Israels’s)policy of the forcing of these people to be compliant and submit. Therefore, cooperation with these established, conflicting interests between the Arab world and the US, is out of question. Last, Israel was a state created out of the British-Mandate, a document which servers self interest while disregarding the current inhabitants opinion (and even international). So, to follow Chomsky’s model, the evil which follows is the responsibility of those who committed to the evil.
To chebyshev153, when you imply that this “democracy” is a step forward in empowering the Iraqi pop., I disagree. Although terrible atrocities were committed under Saddam, and although he had autocratic control, the Iraqi’s still had the eventual ability to change their environment, but now that there is conlficting foreign interests(with the US aggressors), there is less focus on shared interests to compromise on, and more focus on fighting over what isn’t commonly believed to be best. To me it seems to result in an nearly impossible compromise since there is a three way conflict in interest. I think when Chomsky mentions the US-led Iraqi government, and how there’s no real idea of what the Iraqi’s opinion is, he is implying that no legitimate democracy can function to serve the majority. If the government is only applying policy which serves the fortified green zone, then it is going to serve the interests of those in power, which trickles down to primarily US policy. The resulting policy from the new Iraqi government is only serving itself in order to carry out the ideals which it was initially founded on, and non-compliance with that ideal implanted by the US would result in self destruction.
Robert Austin on June 10, 2008, 7:19 PM
Why don%u2019t we allow the Iraqis to hold a nationwide referendum on whether or not the United States should promptly withdraw from Iraq? I have been wondering about this for some time. I have never seen this idea seriously proposed by anyone in our government, but it seems so obvious to me. The Bush administration touts that it has brought democracy to Iraq, and the world has seen elections successfully held in there. If Iraq is stable enough for its people to participate in a general election, then the country must be stable enough to hold a referendum on US withdrawel. A referendum of the sort I propose is good for both the United States and Iraq. If the Iraqis vote %u201CYes, the United States should leave,%u201D the United States could then withdraw without losing face and without emboldening Al Qaeda, since our withdrawal would be implemented out of respect for the will of the Iraqi people, not be due to a loss of will on behalf of the United States. Alternatively, if the Iraqis say, %u201CNo, the United States should stay to help maintain stability,%u201D the United States can justify its continued presence in Iraq to itself and to the rest of the world. The United States would then be seen as a peace keeping nation rather than an occupying nation.
Robert Austin on June 10, 2008, 11:19 PM
Why don%u2019t we allow the Iraqis to hold a nationwide referendum on whether or not the United States should promptly withdraw from Iraq? I have been wondering about this for some time. I have never seen this idea seriously proposed by anyone in our government, but it seems so obvious to me. The Bush administration touts that it has brought democracy to Iraq, and the world has seen elections successfully held in there. If Iraq is stable enough for its people to participate in a general election, then the country must be stable enough to hold a referendum on US withdrawel. A referendum of the sort I propose is good for both the United States and Iraq. If the Iraqis vote %u201CYes, the United States should leave,%u201D the United States could then withdraw without losing face and without emboldening Al Qaeda, since our withdrawal would be implemented out of respect for the will of the Iraqi people, not be due to a loss of will on behalf of the United States. Alternatively, if the Iraqis say, %u201CNo, the United States should stay to help maintain stability,%u201D the United States can justify its continued presence in Iraq to itself and to the rest of the world. The United States would then be seen as a peace keeping nation rather than an occupying nation.
Richard Barcant on July 2, 2008, 8:50 AM
What seems most amazing to me about this whole 'Iraq war' is that I hear talk on TV etc by some that seem to honestly beleive that the Iraquis need to 'pay us back', basically in oil of course, for re-building' their country..
We oursleves were lied to by our leaders and misled into 'buying off' the WMD etc etc justification, into overthrowing of our former ally (against Iran), Saddam. What a farce!!
Why are we not involved in other African countries with worse problems? Are we that openly racial, or is simply that they don't have any thing we can exploit – or a combination perhaps?
We are then stupefied why the (local) Iraqui 'insurgents' want us out of Iraq.. Why they are obstructists to us getting the infrastructure to remove their oil so they they can pay us back to rebuild the infrastructure -that we destroyed..
Can we step out of our closed little world and think what we would e doing if the shoe was on the other foot.. What if China invaded to get us out from under GW Bush? and they allowed us to use our natural resources to pay them back to rebuild with obviously crroked non-competitive contracts..
My stepson 'signed up' for the army in the post 9-11 fervor and is finally back – hopefully for good – although he keeps getting re-enlistment stuff in the mail to keep him, and us, on edge.. Many of his buddies were recently re-deployed – nedles to say h feels guilty – although he is fully aware of the sham that this war is..
He also made us aware of the 'Blackwater' & similar scams well before it hit the airwaves.. Talk about a disillusioned group of soldiers.. Do we think they are all blind and total morons not to see what is going on?
God Bless Arerica.. The Lord knows fully how much we need all the blessings he can bestow on us!!
Lord, please save us from our leaders!!!
Richard Barcant on July 2, 2008, 12:50 PM
What seems most amazing to me about this whole ‘Iraq war’ is that I hear talk on TV etc by some that seem to honestly beleive that the Iraquis need to ‘pay us back’, basically in oil of course, for re-building’ their country..
We oursleves were lied to by our leaders and misled into ‘buying off’ the WMD etc etc justification, into overthrowing of our former ally (against Iran), Saddam. What a farce!!
Why are we not involved in other African countries with worse problems? Are we that openly racial, or is simply that they don’t have any thing we can exploit – or a combination perhaps?
We are then stupefied why the (local) Iraqui ‘insurgents’ want us out of Iraq.. Why they are obstructists to us getting the infrastructure to remove their oil so they they can pay us back to rebuild the infrastructure -that we destroyed..
Can we step out of our closed little world and think what we would e doing if the shoe was on the other foot.. What if China invaded to get us out from under GW Bush? and they allowed us to use our natural resources to pay them back to rebuild with obviously crroked non-competitive contracts..
My stepson ‘signed up’ for the army in the post 9-11 fervor and is finally back – hopefully for good – although he keeps getting re-enlistment stuff in the mail to keep him, and us, on edge.. Many of his buddies were recently re-deployed – nedles to say h feels guilty – although he is fully aware of the sham that this war is..
He also made us aware of the ‘Blackwater’ & similar scams well before it hit the airwaves.. Talk about a disillusioned group of soldiers.. Do we think they are all blind and total morons not to see what is going on?
God Bless Arerica.. The Lord knows fully how much we need all the blessings he can bestow on us!!
Lord, please save us from our leaders!!!
Mac Willson on September 10, 2008, 8:25 AM
All this talk is nice and provocative, but until more is collectively expected from our elected officials, senators, representatives, there will always be people like Mr Chomsky, sitting on the sidelines telling us the truth—of which we should know but have not yet heard. And the automaton will chug along, regularly depositing people like Bush/Cheney in to positions of power, and fouling up the world everywhere. The macrocorporations are getting their way—it is their automaton—and we are working in its belly, keeping it going, and getting the shaft. Until we demand better, this will be our lot
Mac Willson on September 10, 2008, 12:25 PM
All this talk is nice and provocative, but until more is collectively expected from our elected officials, senators, representatives, there will always be people like Mr Chomsky, sitting on the sidelines telling us the truth—of which we should know but have not yet heard. And the automaton will chug along, regularly depositing people like Bush/Cheney in to positions of power, and fouling up the world everywhere. The macrocorporations are getting their way—it is their automaton—and we are working in its belly, keeping it going, and getting the shaft. Until we demand better, this will be our lot
jorge rios on September 30, 2008, 9:29 PM
this is for chebyshev153
are you kidding… the US illegally murdered over one hundred thousand iraqis… mostly civilians…with no valid reason…..
… if the tables were turned do you honestly think you would want the invading force to stay or leave… lol…. the US should get the hell out…. and pay for all the damages…PERIOD
Clayton Santimore on November 25, 2008, 11:11 AM
How can anyone really say we were unjust, had no right, etc. to invadeIraq? The leaders in Iraq violated numerous UN sanctions imposed upon it after the first Gulf War. Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors making it virtually impossible for us to verify whether or not he truly possesed them. Were we supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt? Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past. That is a fact. I truly belived that they had WMD. I think anyone who says that they truly believed Saddam when he said they had none prior to our invasion is a liar. If you believe in the UN’s credibility even a little bit, didn’t we need to move against Saddam after the first time he violated its sanctions (never mind the 12th or 13th time)? If not, why would any country listen to the UN?
I know this a very elementary example but I still believe that it applies here. If you tell a child no, and he does it anyway what do you do? You give him/her a timeout, you ground them, whatever. If you do nothing or threaten to do something and then not back it up, won’t the child repeat the action? After a while, empty threats and inaction just reinforce his/her behavior. We imposed sanctions. Iraq ignored them. We said don’t do it again. Iraq did it again and again and again …
In my opinion, we were justified long before the ultimate invasion in 2003.
j lo on December 6, 2008, 9:06 AM
um, i hate to break it to you csantimor, but the U.S has defied far more U.N resolutions than Iraq ever did. By your logic the U.S should be invaded. Go figure
Jim Stiene on April 24, 2009, 6:59 PM
Sometimes the best way forwards is backwards. We should stop being the self appointed world police. It costs too much and we seem to create more problems than we solve.
tim hall on April 25, 2009, 9:04 PM
The thing about Iraq, is that we cannot afford to be looking back with the exception of the U.N. investigations of our rogue leaders. We need to help rebuild their infrastructure. We need to help keep crime down when asked. We stuck our nose in it. Now we have to do what is right by their people.
Iran’s people are very modern thinking. If we leave them alone, they will overthrow their cultist goverment within 5 years. If we intervene, we will throw them behind 20 more years. This is a nation that can solve it’s own problems.
Afghanistan- the Pushtins, These are a very different people. You can never conquer these people. They are very tribal. The tribe leaders will fight anyone who stands in their way of being leader. Some of them are totally against opium trade but will use it to gain more weapons. If you were to solve all of their problems, they would be right back fighting over leadership. The era that the Taiban ruled was the most calm in 100 years. The Taliban is a religious fanatic cult. Maybe they would do better under their rule until they become more educated.
Pakistan is the most dangerous situation in those parts. We should help them fight crime and try to build non religious schools in their country. We cannot allow western haters to take it over. We need all of Europe doing everything that they can.
The Gaza Strip? Run all the leaders out of both countries and leave the people alone. They have lived together longer peacefully than anyone on the planet. They like each other. They both suffer from egotistic leaders. Take down that stupid wall, you bunch of facist losers. Land, earth does not belong to anybody. Take down all your stupid facist walls and fences. What is wrong with you people? You live your lives in fear. “He gonna git supin from me.” “Ignorant” “feardoms”
kathy k on May 5, 2009, 9:48 PM
Could free world countries ‘cut all ties’ with countries that have different ideology than democracy?
Vicki Nikolaidis on August 30, 2009, 8:27 AM
Which countries are the free world countries?
Unfortunately, the USA has the most military power and takes great pride on using it daily against innocent people. Do U.S.A. citizens agree with this policy? Do U.S.A. citizens want the U.S. military in control of Africa (Africom)? Do they want to be under survellience just in case they do something someone listening feels may be traitorous or out of bounds? Do they want elections that use computers that are hacked and intimidation to get the vote? Do they want peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders hurt and imprisoned? Do they want the elctoral college which negates the vote of the majority? Do they want journalists murdered and sidelined? Do they want different parts of the govt at war with each other so that when one part is backing a coup the other part is promising aid? Do they want a government that supports the flow of drugs from state to state and into the country rather than stopping the demand for addictive drugs? Do they want a government that is satisified enough with the polluted cancer inducing environment of the U.S.A. that it only gives mouth service to cleaning up the environment while polluting the environment intolerably with the building and use of weapons of mass destruction? Do they want a government that uses unmanned robots to kill innoccent people so some soldiers don’t even have to leave the country to become murderers? Do they want a country which closes options for the young so young people see military service as their only option for the future? Do they want war veterans to become a danger to themselves and their community rather than give them the health support they need? Do they want a country of malnutrutioned, obese children? Do they want a country of illerate people that can’t even read the chart at the eye docotors let alone a newspaper? Do they want a country where everyday more and more people are living in a tent, just one tent away from the street? Do they want a country that refuses health care and lets people die for profit?
DEMOCRACY is a word that means many things to many people depending on whether they want (1) to have an intelligent sharing of information or (2) drive the fear of the devil into people or (3) to trick people.
Democracy comes from the citizens of a place not from the occupation forces who decide they want that place.
The U.S. calls itself a democracy but is it?
The U.S. has isolated itself from the rest of the world enough that even the meanings of words in English mean something very different to other English speaking peoples.
Yes, a country that calls itself a democracy can cooperate with countries having different ideologies if only because this is not junior high. This is the real world and life and death issues are not solved by the bully in the schoolyard. The bully only makes the problem worse.
Vicki Nikolaidis on August 30, 2009, 8:34 AM
The best way forward? Use the judicial system to punish appropriately rather than indiscriminate killing.
Use the military to guard the perimeters of the hospitals, schools, food markets. Put the troops 4 deep, 10 deep or 20 whatever is necessary to protect and keep supplies for the citizens where they belong.
Provide escorts for citizens who need it to go back to university classes and jobs.
Follow the laws of Iraq. Drive with care.
LEARN THE LANGUAGES USED AND SPEAK THEM.
Replenish the soil, get water to the people, let the electriciansof Iraq fix their own electricity. Buy food from Iraq and neighboring countries. Quit transporting anything that can be found there. Ship the trash from the packaging back to the USA.
Southern Iraq is experiencing the worse drought since inhabited by people. Help fix this problem.
FLOOD the country with doctors, nurses, architects, archeologists, engineers and ask the Iraqis “How can we help you? What do you want us to do?” And then do it.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register