An American friend recently told me about the Boston Tea Party, an act admired by many even now for its show of defiance against foreigners imposing their will on the American people. I considered this new knowledge of American history while noticing how many of my American friends strongly oppose their government taking more control of matters in their daily lives like revamping the health care system and bailing out banks and big businesses. They claim things will get worse once inefficient, big government gets involved. Case in point, the failing Social Security system, right? These Americans really want less government intrusion in their families and in their personal decisions.
If you oppose YOUR government – elected by you – being so involved in your daily lives, why do you expect others to accept its involvement in their lives although they did not elect it? Why should the Iraqis accept the government the US thinks is best for that country? Do you self-described conservative and libertarian types not oppose YOUR own politicians meddling in your healthcare system and definitions of marriage? Why then do you think it’s fine for these same politicians- who were NOT elected here – to meddle and destroy and tell us what to do? Why the double standards? You want liberty and justice for all, but “all” means only Americans, right? Why do the Americans have the right to arrest more than 19,000 Iraqis without trials? Why do they have the right to kill and wound hundreds of thousands in Iraq and elsewhere without anyone holding them accountable? Would the Americans accept their own government doing these kind of things to them?
Why expect others to accept what you do not wish to accept yourself? We did not elect your politicians.
American-Arab Dialogue 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 3, 2009 at 5:36 am
Mythos
I think this is exactly why so many Americans were against us invading Iraq to begin with. Couple that with issues such as no “wmd’s” found, no Al Qaeda in Iraq (until after the invasion), and the fact that the government of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and you arrive at the one simple question you asked in your article which is: “Why should the Iraqis accept the government the US thinks is best” for it?
Excellent article Samer!
~ Mythos
March 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm
jonolan
“Why expect others to accept what you do not wish to accept yourself?”
You make a mistake in assuming that Americans think other countries should “accept” what our government does in other countries. Acceptance isn’t actually a requirement, though compliance is often so.
All nations’ foreign policies are based in doing what is felt to be best for a nation’s people, often with little regard for the people of opposing nations – and all nations are in opposition in some manner or form.
March 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Ophelia Keith
I’m not sure where you get the idea that Americans accept any of these things. Bush had a 24% approval rating when he left (I assume his ich buddies were the only ones who approved of him) and there have been massive demonstrations against the Iraq War. Even Republicans have distanced themselves from his failed administration. It is also widely believed that the neo-cons stole the first election and the Democrats sacrificed the second one to return stronger in 2008.
The victims of Hurricane Katrina remain homeless and without compensation for their losses to this day. Throwing billions of dollars away in the Middle East is bitterly resented by the majority of the US population who have been forced to the sidelines while we watch our children’s birthright squandered, our healthcare and educational systems decay and our workers made redundant.
Why do you think Americans came out in such huge numbers to vote for Barack Obama?
I think the West should work harder to become energy self-sufficient and leave the Middle East to its own devices. Other than oil, I really don’t see what either side has ever gotten from the other that is positive.
March 4, 2009 at 8:44 pm
samer85
Thank you all for your comments!
Mythos and Ophelia, I totally agree with what you wrote.
Jonolan, what you said seems to be true but I want to know why most of those who supported the war say it was to bring freedom to Iraqis? I don’t have a problem with an honest person that says the war was for oil and supporting America’s interests around the world. But my problem is with those who claim that the war was waged to help the poor Iraqis.
March 4, 2009 at 9:13 pm
jonolan
To some – a large – extent the war in Iraq was fought to free the Iraqis from Saddam’s tyranny.
Of course, since Iraq has oil, nobody is willing to believe that truth; it’s so much more comfortable to believe that the US went in their – at great cost – for oil, even though there were easier ways of getting that oil.
Samer85, if America had really wanted the oil, we’d have it by now.
Think on this also, how little outrage would there be if America enacted a “regime change” on Sudan or Zimbabwe?
March 13, 2009 at 8:12 am
Phil
The problem with this question is that you assume every American is a small government conservative. This is a very inaccurate understanding of American politics. Particularly right now when Democrats control all three branches of government.
On top of that, Gallup just released a poll showing most Americans trust the government over the private sector to solve their problems.
One last point, the door swings both ways. Americans might be involved in the middle east, but Arab political leaders openly seek engagement and American interference. This doesn’t apply to every action America takes in the middle east, but this is hardly a case of the US forcing arab nations to do whatever they want.
March 20, 2009 at 1:05 am
dikotiki
You initial assumption is false, “An American friend recently told me about the Boston Tea Party, an act admired by many even now for its show of defiance against foreigners imposing their will on the American people.”
We did not look upon the English as foreigners because, at the time, we were English as well. Your American friend should also explain that even in the Declaration of Independence the colonies referred to, not the country of Great Britain, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations…” We were against the current leader, not the British Empire, not the ‘station’ of the British Crown even, and certainly not the people of Great Britain, we simply were tired of the ‘present King’, who at the time, was *OUR* present King.
Back to the Tea Party. It took place in 1773, and the Declaration did not take place until 1776, so we were once again in dialog, or some substitute for a dialog, with the Crown both before and after that. This was the result of excessive taxation and the King turning a deaf ear to our frustrations, giving the East India Company a strangle hold on the sale and importation of tea to the colonies.
In the end, Ben Franklin stated that the colonists needed to pay back the damages resulting from the action, and the colonies tried to do so, but could not.
Iraq is U.S. foreign policy, which is different that U.S. domestic policy. The most basic facts of the matter lie with the saying, “A nation does not have friends, it has interests.” There came a point when Iraq’s interest and our own were to divergent.
Also, without insulting the intellectual capacity of the Iraqis, it does them well to remember that under a dictator they had no choice of a government. Equally true is the fact that if not careful, even with elections the result could be a dictatorship. But at least the Iraqis have a chance.
Again, without insulting the intellectual abilities of the Iraqis, it would be wise of them to look at the military, social, and economic security Turkey has and try to emulate that success while the chance is there. If not, don’t worry, a new dictator will eventually come into power and return them to their former status.
Whether or not going into Iraq was good, smart, or otherwise is now as useless to argue about as last week’s Tuesday dinner; let the smart and forward thinking take charge and make something more of that potentially rich and internationally influential country than currently is or has been.