lemming drops studio

. home . prose . poetry . blog .
. art . comics . lego . store . links .

revolution, spousal abuse and political dissidents (6-9-3)
Revolution is the responsibility of the citizens not the neighbors.
Taking down Saddam was not the job of the United States, the United Nations or anyone but the Iraqi people who did not want him there. And, Saddam has a history of making sure those dissidents were killed. And we like to treat that like it?s a bad thing. In Cuba recently, Castro has been cracking down on dissidents, those evil prodemocracy kind of dissidents, those dissidents we Americans are supposed to support, nevermind that we don?t live in Cuba and shouldn?t be putting a stake in their government unless we plan on living there. And, we?re in talks with the European Union about what should be done about Castro now. In between talks about Iran having a nuclear program, not that we should care, and Iraq having a bunch of empty chemical labs, like it?s any of our business.
In Waco, Texas, we killed numerous Branch Davidians. You know why? They were living outside our set rules, stockpiling weapons, proclaiming themselves (or, their leader anyway) messiahs. They were put down accordingly, killed outright in the melee or saved and brainwashed back into society, at least as far as that goes. Did the world rise up against us for killing these dissidents?
No, they did not. If a government cares to exist as a government, it cannot allow its citizens to rise up against it. Just because Saddam was better at us at putting down dissidents?just look at the numbers on how many he killed and how many we?ve killed in the same amount of time?does that make him evil? If it does, does that leave us with some holy dictate to put him down?
Unless we plan, openly, to remain in Iraq, to occupy that nation indefinitely, to essentially or even officially annex it into our democracy, what right do we have to take down its government? If the Iraqi people were so much against Saddam and his Bath Party, why couldn?t they overthrow him? Hell, we could have even helped a little, I suppose, if we wanted to have a hand in it. But, they will never earn or deserve any democracy if we do it all for them.
Revolution is the responsibility of the citizens not the neighbors.
A battered woman cannot just be taken away from her abusive husband and leave it at that. There are reasons to go back, love, children, or what have you. And, if there had been no reason for the Iraqi citizens to remain in Iraq under Saddam?s brutal leadership, they could have left. Isn?t that what we tell our own dissidents, our own revolutionaries, our own protesters. If you don?t like it here, then get the hell out! Right?
We upstart liberals don?t expect another nation to come rescue us from George Bush. We have to do it our own damn selves, through the system or around it. Getting back to that battered woman metaphor, we have to get to the women?s shelter, we have to make the effort. We can?t just sit on our duff waiting for someone to rescue us. And, not because someone won?t but because someone shouldn?t.
Revolution is the responsibility of the citizens not the neighbors.
If we can?t be bothered to make our revolution, then we don?t deserve to get one. And, neither did the Iraqi citizens.
In a perfect world, we wouldn?t have such massive political entities, and breaking off into our own subgroups would be much easier. But this is not that world. It will never be that world. We have empirical nation states, all vying to be world powers, like there?s some great prize for the one that wins. It could be said that the power itself is the prize, but at what cost do we, as a nation, need that power? How many people do we need to kill to make things right?
Revolution is the responsibility of the citizens not the neighbors.
Unless those citizens have oil of course. Then those neighbors will make it their business, won?t they?