Why war in Iraq and not in other places like Soweto, South Africa?

Question

I was watching this movie called "Cry Freedom" in which a very important South African Black Consciencness Movement leader - Steve Biko - was killed due to simply trying to change the way of life for black african citizens. More than being moved by the death of this very pro-active leader, I was totally outraged that 700 CHILDREN WERE MURDERED during a celebration rally along with 4,000 people being injured. Basically what it boiled down to was white south african leaders killing political prisoners who didn't deserve to be in jail in the first place and the jailers having the right not to declare the cause of death. Some of the causes were: Fell 10 floors, self hanging/strangulation, asthma attack, mortal injuries,.....what????? What finally drove Donald Woods over the edge was that Steve Biko was murdered and the cause of death was - "self starvation". I know other countries are experiencing similar violations against human rights...so that's why I ask the question - WHY IRAQ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Freedom - please follow this link for additional details and please feel free to post links about other nations suffering the same. I just posted one that I know more about.

Correction my friend...Biko was killed in 1977, but the attack on polical prisoners was as late as the making of the movie, which was in 1987. So it was not thirty years plus ago. To the person who was talking about blacks killing people who "farmed" or whatever the hell they did, this is not a black and white issue. I just used an "example" that I'm aware of. Take that white supremist ish somewhere else. I get tired of some ignorant people who happen to be "white" (I truly empathize with the other whites who are probably extremely embarrased) making negative comments about "blacks" in an effort to defend the actions of hateful people.

Answer 1

Most of our current American leaders were friends to the South African government that instituted and maintained apartheid. What we hear about freedom from our current administration is opportunistic rhetorical nonsense. If the United States government was interested in freedom around the world we would not have sponsored coups in the former Belgian Congo assassinating Patrice Lumumba, been instrumental in the coup in 1973 in Chile, supported the shah of Iran and helping him overthrow a democratically elected government in 1953. That American-sponsored coup has been a major backdrop to all of the developments in the Middle East including today's failures in Iraq, the debacle in Israel with the Palestinians, the multiple authoritarian and totalitarian regimes throughout the region. The Ayatollah and subsequent leaders of Iran have been terrible. Life under the Shah for most was abysmal. Speaking one's mind often lead to long prison terms, exile and sometimes death. He had a gestapo like police force called Savak. The middle east politics became threatened greatly once the world economy became dependent on petroleum. The British and Americans at the behest of major oil corporations have appeased some of the most brutal and backward governments that have been known in history. Too much oil is at stake.

Answer 2

Stephen Biko was 30+ years ago. The world political landscape was entirely different, with the Cold War still going strong. Nor was there any chance of the violence in South Africa being exported to the US. Look at the current response to Darfur, and you'll notice it's much the same as the world response to apartied back then...if the problem is purely internal, it's lower priority to the world.

Answer 3

One reason we aren't doing more in third world countries is because they simply don't have any reason to. Countries like Iraq and Afganistan have or would have posed a security threat to our country, in one way or another (physical or economic).

Secondly, how would it look if the US just suddenly sent in troops, armor, and began bombing South Africa. It would turn into another Vietnam. One thing we have to understand is that we cannot solve all the worlds problems in one day, that takes generations of cooperation.

Third, that sounds more like something the United Nations is addressing. It is the world body and its job is to not only prevent such violence but also to fix it with aid.

I can't even begin to think of how we could stop the violence.

Answer 4

Well its because of corruption, OIL and well because it makes sense to attack a country and therefore make MORE TERRORISTS than before you invaded them. At least before Iran and Iraq kept each other in check.

Anyway Zimbabwe should be 'freed' considering the people there have a terrible time. Sadly they have a lack of oil :(

Answer 5

Blacks don't lie, right? Movies are true. Mandela is a hero.

You haven't heard of the whites massacred and their farms stolen in S African and Rhodesia? I guess that's not important enough for a movie.

Answer 6

Saddam was killing thousands of his own citizens as well. He gas attacked the Kurds who live in northern Iraq.

Answer 7

Well, my question to you is - why can only Americans fight these bad people? Why do other countries expect us to fight all their wars?

I guess, Iraq is more of a threat to our homeland security right now than Africa.

Answer 8

No oil in Soweta!

Answer 9

Why Iraq Isnt Working



Although our justifications for invading Iraq have continually shifted to better suite our political interests, I will focus on the two most prevalent reasons and completely ignore the original, weapons of mass destruction charge. This leaves the waging of a global war on terror and the dissemination of Democracy throughout the Middle East.



We have heard the President declare that, We will fight them over there so that we will not have to fight them here. As a Military Intelligence Analyst who began researching Al Qaeda prior to the 1998 bombings, I have to ask the question, why Iraq? It is well known that Iraq was the most secular nation in the Middle East and was by far the least likely to harbor or support Wahhabist terrorists. The countries that we know to be sympathetic to Al Qaeda are Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, and Iran. Pakistan not only has a history of state-sponsored terrorism but also manufactures nuclear missiles. So despite Saddam being a bad guy, he was a bad guy who has about as much love for Osama Bin Laden as he has for the United States and was about as dangerous prior to the invasion as say Cuba, or perhaps even Jamaica. Is this to say that actual terrorists arent in Iraq? Unfortunately no, following our invasion, Wahhabist clerics and terrorists moved into Iraq in order to fill in the enormous leadership gaps we created in the turmoil of warfare. So after Rumsfeld decided to fire the entire Iraqi army, who incidentally maintain their own firearms, someone moved in to take control of this enormous unemployed gaggle and shape them into Mujahadeen trained insurgents.



The second reason given is a long range vision which was presented to Bill Clinton by the group, Progress for a New American Century and included such members as Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz. This vision involved the establishment of a Democratic government in the Middle East which would act as a catalyst to the dissemination of democracy throughout the region. This is a delicate operation which involves setting the example and demonstrating the virtue of Democracy to people who have been ruled by the rod from the beginning of time.



This idea may sound noble; however, we would expect its proponents to understand the complex issues that would need to be addressed. Americas freedom was not brought about by a dozen disgruntled colonists flinging tea into the harbor. It took years of diplomacy, debate, and eventually, an organic desire to fight for our own sovereignty. Bush senior believed that after Saddam was defeated in Desert Storm, the people of Iraq would rise up and overthrow him. This clearly did not happen. It seems a bit optimistic to believe that after the forced removal of Saddam, that they would immediately embrace a democratic system of government which was about as familiar to them as totalitarian regimes are to us.



The greater obstacle is not the efficacy of our approach to either of these objectives; it is the attempt to carry them out simultaneously. It is in the vast contradictions which arise when trying to hunt down and destroy terrorists at the same time that you are attempting to provide an example of the freedom, justice, and virtue of Democracy. It is in this dissonance that we are pushed farther and farther away from our actual, indisputable objective; to decrease terrorism and its effectiveness in the World.



It is hard to demonstrate the justice inherent in a democratic system of government while adopting a policy of unlimited detainment of suspected terrorists and torture via extradition. While we are preaching about freedom to the Iraqi people they are reading headlines which describe searches without warrants, cell-phone surveillance, and automated data-mining operations involving millions of innocent Americans. These two objectives are clearly working against each other, you simply cannot play good cop and bad cop at the same time; we come off as a heavy handed schizophrenic. Both the CIA and the State Department have come forward and acknowledged that our decreasing image in the World has lead to more terrorist activity and a seemingly endless pool of young disenchanted recruits.



We are constantly told that our hope lies in the new Iraqi government and their newly formed Iraqi Army. The government, in their first bout of elections, elected the most religiously fundamental candidates into the Parliament. Many of the Iraqi soldiers interviewed by AP journalists claimed that at least 30% the Army was actually loyal to the fundamentalist clerics and were instructed to join the Army for the free firearms and training. A couple of Iraqi soldiers exposed the T-shirts hidden beneath their military jackets which had the Insurgent leader, Cleric Al-Sadr's face printed on them. They stated that they were simply waiting for the clerics to call them back and issue new orders. Meanwhile, After Abu Musab al-Zarqawis death, it was discovered that his cell-phone contained the numbers of several top officials within the Iraqi government. With the soldiers loyal to the Clerics, and the government communicating with Al-Qaeda, the rosy news from the rose garden just doesn't seem all that reliable. Is it even surprising that the CIA just decommissioned their Bin-Laden task force? The government is further decreasing its efforts to catch the terrorist Mastermind responsible for the September 11, attacks.



The objective of Al-Qaeda was to instill fear into Americans. They have been far more successful than even they thought possible. Over the course of just a few years we have changed our character. We have traded in our freedoms for what was supposed to be increased security. History has taught us that once we give up our individual rights to the government, we will never get them back. It took a corporate port scheme and a hurricane to demonstrate how little we actually received in return. Worst of all, now more than ever we are talking about patriotism, freedom, and Democracy, yet because of fear we have begun to give up rights which once helped define our greatness. At a time when so many are quick to decry that We support our troops! We are quick to receive our petty tax breaks and quickly forget that it is our tax dollars that provide the real support for our troops, not the hollow gesture provided by plastic yellow stickers.

Answer 10

I'll get to them. one country at a time