The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #58336   Message #923473
Posted By: Little Hawk
01-Apr-03 - 09:42 AM
Thread Name: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
Ahhh....

Okay, Amos, I get you. Here's my answer.

I am against aggression. I am against unprovoked invasions of small countries by large, hypocritical countries who invade for their own gain, while trying to concoct a moral fig lead with with to cover themselves.

I care not whether the small country being invaded is democratic or undemocratic, that does not give large countries a right to attack and occupy it without provocation, and violate international law in so doing.

Stalin's Russia was extremely undemocratic. That did not justify the Nazi attack on Russia in '41 (although Hitler's propaganda called it a "liberation"). The attack caused the deaths of many millions of Russians and Germans and other people in the end, and did not liberate anybody (except from life itself...). I note that the vast majority of Russians were not grateful to the Nazis afterward, and that Stalin was ultimately greatly strengthened in popularity among his own people as a result of the German attack.

Poland was not a very democratic place in '39, I don't think. Nor was Yugoslavia in '41. I'm not sure about Finland, but I doubt that it was as democratic as we are in North America. All 3 of those small countries were attacked ruthlessly by, respectively, Germany, Germany, and Soviet Russia...all for direct material gain for the aggressor.

The USA and Britain have now attacked Iraq for direct material gain, NOT because Iraq is undemocratic. They have done it without solid evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. They have scorned world opinion, scorned the U.N., violated international law, lied, presented false evidence and forged documents, and (in the case of Britain) defied the opinion of their own public who elected Tony Blair to represent them.

They are no better than Hitler and Mussolini, and they are "liberating" no one. They will drop the Kurds and anyone else foolish enough to fight for them like a hot potatoe as soon as they no longer need them. They've done it before, and they'll do it again.

I don't call aggressors "liberators", not even when they attack people who are as bad as themselves or even worse (if that would be possible).

- LH