Whenever any bigger guy invades any smaller guy, it's always for the smaller guy's benefit. "We're doing this for you!" Unbeknownst to the smaller guy, he is being saved.
So what's all the fuss???
Some people really don't know what's good for them!
Noam Chomsky once said that every rising imperialistic state has a moralistic policy to justify its actions. Interesting. I am not so sure about the word "imperialist", so let me substitute "a powerful and influential, country or authorised organisation, in the course of meddling in other peoples' affairs" instead.
- In WW-2 the 3rd Reich preached (at least a bit, in the beginning) about liberating, bringing civilisation, technology, and financial help to other countries. It soon dropped any pretence, however.
- In the 1930s the Japanese were very apt at "liberating oppressed masses in Asia": they brought technology and relief funding and safety, to Asian masses hitherto oppressed, or threatened by, commies. As the operation cost the Japanese a pretty packet, they also touted the aid angle (look at all the money we're spending for you).
- Not so long ago, the good old Soviet Union had liberated a number of countries from the malady of western capitalistic and imperialistic social rot -- and kept them thus liberated until Mr Gorbachev came along and allowed them to unliberate. So much so that some of these countries outlawed communism after being un-liberated.
- Today we have a US lead "coalition" saving Eye-rack and the Eye-rackease from oppression, from something, from something else, as well as establishing democracy. The same moralistic rigmarole used by the Japanese 70 years ago is used today, too...
- Likewise, the Afghans are being saved as well -- as it turns out, they are now being saved from the results of the previous saving operation...
Who foots the bill for all the lives that are lost? The liberators' and liberatees' alike?
1 comment:
Good for people to know.
Post a Comment