Bad sign: When foreign armies can kill your citizens with impunity
God knows the Iraqis didn’t like it, nor the Afghans, and now the discontent has spread to Libya as well. What on earth could make them react so hostilely to that sort of thing? It surely wouldn’t bother us, would it?
No good deed goes unpunished…
I saw on the CNN network, videos of all those Libyan resistance fighters bravely staving off the Libyan army and their mercenaries. They often were pleading for Coalition forces to continue their bombing runs, even when they knew that some of the bombs would go astray and hit there own forces or civilians yet, they seem to have realized that some would need to die, for what they hoped would be for the greater good of all.
Here’s a case of the good Samaritan being sued for offering assistance – http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1#.Tu0sgfLQeVo
Basically, it seems that one is doomed to ‘your damned if you do…and your damned if you don’t’
In my opinion, the uprisings and wins of the people, over the tyrants in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria would never of happened, if Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts hadn’t evolved the way they did. The crushing of a brutal dictator in Iraq and the repression of the Taliban in Afghanistan gave people around the Middle East – Hope and other brutal regimes susceptible to revolt, a lot of Paranoia.
The USA can be proud that they have helped in giving hope to a lot of people that several years ago would never have thought limited freedom was possible in their lifetime.
Nick
17 December 2011 at 4:20 pm
The point is this: Many in the U.S. do not understand how the people of (e.g.) Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other countries) could possibly bear any animus against the U.S. because of U.S. actions. Indeed, the very idea that U.S. actions could contribute to deadly hatred of the U.S. (i.e., terrorism) is generally roundly condemned by many, who can say only that “they hate us for our freedoms,” the total lack of sense in the statement apparently no problem.
So I’m saying, in effect, “I wonder how citizens of the U.S. would react if foreign armies could, with absolute impunity, kill civilians whenever they wanted.”
And although the U.S. has indeed given hope to many, the focus of the post was on those to whom the U.S. has given death, maiming, despair, and shattered families. Or is that topic not to be broached?
I should have made the point of the post clearer: irony doesn’t play well.
LeisureGuy
17 December 2011 at 5:45 pm
I understood your point quite well, with the ‘short term’ irony included. My point was in suggesting that the vast majority of the populous in these countries – if I may generalize for now and be point specific later – are reluctantly appreciative of the efforts we have undertaken in their countries.
As history has always taken time to show, many countries that we had invaded in the past, had later grown to acknowledge the US sacrifice in liberating from tyranny or at the very least offering them an opportunity to govern themselves.
Take Germany, France, Belgium and all the axis and allied countries combined during both WW1 and WW2, there was mass suffering, hardship and in the case of Germany and Japan and surrounding countries millions of civilian casualties at the hands of our Military. We were not invited in but we prevailed and soon after became allies and best buddies.
If you continue on to S. Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and now the Middle East you will find that reluctantly the mass of people appreciated and will appreciate US actions in their countries.
To focus on the opinions of the minority of a given society and continue to highlight their view to suggest that the majority feel as they do, is not entirely accurate posting in my opinion.
Regarding the post above, the premise is really clutching at straws, surely there are more relevant global events that may lend the argument valid or have those been used up ? The NYT article to be posted on A1 for tomorrows edition would suggest that the NYT was looking for a new item to fill the page, it is really old news and very weak, in my opinion.
Here is an example of what I am suggesting, taken from the article in the NYT:
“…So far, Libyan leaders have expressed no interest in examining NATO’s mistakes.”
“…There are indications that the alliance took many steps to avoid harming civilians, and often did not damage civilian infrastructure useful to Colonel Qaddafi’s military…”
“…While the overwhelming preponderance of strikes seemed to have hit their targets without killing noncombatants, many factors contributed to a run of fatal mistakes…”
I could go on and on, the excerpts above were taken within 2 or 3 paragraphs of many. My point is that after every conflict there are grudges, resentment and even hatred among the populace but with time there is healing and even at times appreciation.
The majority of Iraqis and Afghans are appreciative but now want us out, no flag burnings, mass riots and rear guard pot shots in either country, so what’s the big deal ?
Nick
17 December 2011 at 6:50 pm