The Fund For Peace has listed the 2007 Failed States Index (FSI), which ranks 177 countries based on their social, economic, and political pressures. The Ploughshares Fund supports the work of the Fund for Peace to produce this comprehensive index. Guess what? Iraq is number two on the list; Afghanistan is number eight. What do they have in common? Both countries were invaded by the United States for the purpose of regime change in our "war on terror."
The reality is that our government's policies have failed, making us less safe. A nation cannot wage war on an idea: to wage war on terror is to wage war on an idea, and doomed to fail. When you cut off the head of a hydra, ten grow back. If you can think of one time when invading a nation has produced stability, please, have at it. Show me. This is a failed policy, and doomed to disaster.
If you haven't joined One Million Blogs for Peace yet, why not?
12 comments:
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Ms. Diva; as usual, I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think Afghanistan was a failed state long before the US Government went in there and despite all the damage done by the invasion of Iraq, it was previously run by a crazy, corrupt dictator which hardly made it a successful country.
In my opinion, there are few examples of an invasion working for the ultimate good but I would put forth to you that the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an invasion that brought stability. D-Day would be another example of an invasion of a country for the ultimate good of eradicating fascism from Europe. (And maybe that wasn't necessarily an invasion in the strictest sense of the word.)
I do agree that the war on terror is a failed policy and it's sad to see the Taliban rising up again in Afghanistan but not surprising.
I agree with tree about the invasion of Japan and fascist Europe. Those were wars against an idea, fascism, and we were quite victorious. We also won the war in Iraq in a matter of months, but have been unable to win the peace because Iraqis don't seem to love freedom. Overall in the Global War On Terrorism/Long Global War Against Violent Extremism (GWOT and LGWAVE respectively) we are making steady progress in reducing the risk of further terrorist attacks (we have after all not been hit since September 11, 2001). Even Hillary Clinton, the "feminazi" herself has conceded that the US is safer under the dutiful watch of our beloved President Bush. One cannot ask for a better example of the left finally understanding that the GWOT/LGWAVE are truly necessary in order to secure our liberty and freedom.
It's got to be more than just the failed foreign policy to put us in the warning zone. I think if we combine the current administrations foreign policy, their economic plans, their health care, their corruption and cronyism and disaster relief - then we can see Bush sending us down the tubes at high speed.
ohio, i have no memory of Clinton coming remotely close to saying bush was right...............
i think the invasion of germany and poland by the Allied forces were a good thing. if that had not happened, the concentration camps would still be going.
weezielou,
At the democrat presidential debate in New Hampshire in response to the question of whether or not we are safer now than before 9/11 she said the following:
"'I believe we are safer than we were,' Mrs. Clinton said." She could not have been more clear, George W. Bush has made America a safer place.
As much as I hate to admit it, ohio neocon is correct about Hillary saying the US is safer because of Bush policies following 9/11. Sad, nutty, pandering, but true.
Diva Jood, thanks to you LM is now a member of One Million Blogs For Peace. Thank you so much.
Tree, and Ohio, World War II was fought against nations: Japan and Germany, and Italy. All had Fascist governments, and we did not invade. And I don't think Truman needed to bomb both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki to bring Japan to its knees. BUSH is fighting a "War on Terror", and invaded Iraq. And while I agree that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had the best governments, was it really our job to go in and destabilize those countries further?
Peacechick, I'm not sure what Bush's policies actually are, other than thumping his chest and shouting that he's the President. Oh, yes, and making sure that emails get erased.
WeezieLou, what Mirth said. Which is one more reason I don't like Hillary Clinton.
Mirth, I'm glad LM has become one of the blogs. The more, the stronger we get.
The nations of Japan and Germany had the idea that they would take over the world and kill anyone who got in their way. Truman ordered the bombing of Nagasaki because Japan would not surrender. Whether or not Truman should have bombed Nagasaki is a huge "what if" for the ages, I suppose. But I believe these to be facts which I separate from my personal views of war and justice.
As for invasion, WWII may not have many examples of America invading other countries because America had allies in Europe and the Pacific so outright invasion could be avoided. (Iwo Jima may be an exception?)
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I never implied it was a good thing to attack these countries; I made the point I did because I don't agree with the implications that the US is entirely at fault for their poor rating on this scale.
tree,
Iraq, however brutal Saddam was, was not a failed state before the US completely screwed it up. People had water, electricity, food, and jobs. Now they don't have anything. Low rating for the US deserved.
Anonymous, Saddam came to power through the intervention of the USA; he was removed from power by the USA as well. But for all his brutality, for ALL of it, you are right. They had food, water, electricity, jobs.
"But the trains ran on time."
I would take living without fear of being tortured to death over electricity any day.
and by the way anonymous, a country run by a brutal dictator IS a failed state.
Post a Comment