You know, I was just wondering...
If the US is supposed to have the most technologically advanced military in the entire ever of existence, then why, every morning when I read the news, is there another article to the tune of "A U.S. air strike mistakenly hit an Afghan army checkpoint / an Iraqi hospital /A Pakistani village killing 9 / 30 / 84 and wounding many more."
I mean... Do we do it on purpose?
I can almost hear "GOD BLESS AMERICA!! MY HOME, SWEE--" playing in the background as I read these articles.
God Bless America. We are the destroyers of life, liberty, and any possibility of happiness.
I was reading the AP news feed the other day, as is my habit, and I came across yet another article on the agreement that the United States is trying to reach with Iraq to stay beyond the end of the year.
Maybe a little background is in order, since most people don't know what is going on here: The United States is currently in Iraq under UN orders (because, you know, we bullied the UN into giving us orders to be in Iraq). That order expires at the end of this year. For the United States to legally remain in Iraq beyond the end of this year, Iraq must request our presence there. Negotiations for this agreement have been going on over the past year.
The people of Iraq have taken to the streets in the last few weeks to protest against this agreement. It only makes sense, people don't usually like for their lands to be occupied by foreign militaries. You wouldn't like it, and nobody in the world likes it. Foreign occupations, even for the most benevolent of reasons, have a long history of turning into bloodbaths, with the locals getting tired of a foreign army telling them what to do, and that army protecting itself by killing those who oppose it. Which is exactly what most of the violence in Iraq is right now.
The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, is under great pressure from the United States to make sure this agreement is passed and is doing his best to do so. The agreement must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament before it can take effect. However, a large and influential party within the parliament is opposed to the agreement, as are -- it would seem -- a good portion of the Iraqi people.
All of that background to come to this: In this AP article I was reading, and I have seen a similar sentence to this in similar articles, I found a sentence that read something like this:
"Al-Maliki is concerned that he will face political isolation if he were to push forward with the agreement without the backing of the nation."
Now, let's think about what that really means: Why did the United States quote-unquote invade Iraq? To bring them DEMOCRACY! And, what does Democracy mean to you? Rule of the people. Does a Prime Minister concerned with becoming "politically isolated" if he goes against the will of the people sound like a "Democracy" to you? Oh, hmm... No, it doesn't. Weird, huh?
"Democracy" means something completely different to the leaders of nations than it does to the people of nations. Most people believe that a democracy is meant to be ruled by the will of the people, for the people. And that is very convenient for you to believe, as far as the leaders of nations are concerned. What "Democracy" means to them is, basically, the influencing of the will of the people to accomplish the will of those in power.
If you doubt that, read this again. Or any other similar news story that shows up every day.