so with our intervention, 3 major dangerous leaders in the arab world are dead. Qaddafi may have been the scummiest of the lot. and it does seem that here it wasn't just america pulling along a few allies; it was america as part of an alliance of which we weren't any more important than the others. and libya had pled for intervention. if it hadn't become a sort of US hobby to invade foreign countries for their own good, this one on its own and for this fairly authentic action [no made up weapons of mass destruction] might even make me glad. most important, it clearly was in support of an already existing people's revolution, not a scaremongering of americans into thinking we were in direct danger.
it still leaves me uneasy. as with bin laden and saddam hussein, i'm not sorry he's gone. but i still end up wondering what good it will do, and how our government will continue now. are we going to set ourselves up as the university of democracy and stay there as the civil war goes on? how will it play out in america's increasingly imperialistic in other people's countries? and how much will our involvement cost our own awful economy? and what country is next???
or, in the happiest scenario, will this participation in the 'arab spring' encourage the more intelligent and least cynical of our leaders to make the connection with the Occupation here?
it still leaves me uneasy. as with bin laden and saddam hussein, i'm not sorry he's gone. but i still end up wondering what good it will do, and how our government will continue now. are we going to set ourselves up as the university of democracy and stay there as the civil war goes on? how will it play out in america's increasingly imperialistic in other people's countries? and how much will our involvement cost our own awful economy? and what country is next???
or, in the happiest scenario, will this participation in the 'arab spring' encourage the more intelligent and least cynical of our leaders to make the connection with the Occupation here?
No comments:
Post a Comment