This is my first new post in 4 years. I stepped away for school and work. I'm here to pose a question. Why is it freedom is so selective? The current analogue is Tibet, of course. You may have heard of it. Tibetans want to be independent, as they were. China, the new bully in town, says no way! Everyone feels for them, some protest, but there is no major multilateral front from any government or institution. Why? Because it's effing China. So what do I mean by selective freedom? Well it's easy to explain. We went to Iraq to free its people from a repressive regime that the U.S. installed. Some Iraqi's want us there some don't, and that point here is irrelevant. My aim is to cultivate debate and receive opinions, hopefully far from my own, on why we chose Iraq over other nations to help liberate.
Another example is Sudan. The major ethnic cleansing is downright horrific, with thousands of cases of rapings, killings, mulitations, and Lord knows what else. We sent financial, and some structural help, but now it is largely buried in the media's closet. There is very little reporting on it. Why is that? Why not Sudan instead of Iraq? We aren't in Iraq to fight terrorists, since there weren't any there in the first place. We are in Iraq to liberate them according to George W.. I know this may strike the reader as naivete. If we didn't fight Iraq they would develop WMD's blah blah blah,. It seems to me that there were and there are larger threats than Iraq that we have not been able to curtail due to our current quagmirish dilemma. I digress. My aim is to ask why do we not apply the same standards we did to Iraq, to Tibet, or Sudan? We support Bosnia's secession, but we forget others. What is the criteria that we use to judge whether we should liberate a nation who feels oppressed, and who cries out for internation help? It's amazing to me how the powers that be are so quick to support the recent Kosovo secession, but whimper at Tibets similar calls. I just don't get it. What do you all think?