NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I admit it: I haven't been following the news coming out of Iraq lately. The last I heard they were having another election of some sort, but I don't know what it was all about, and I only heard about it because I was watching the Daily Show, so I'm not really an expert on the subject. But I was thinking: lets say that the whole thing goes well. Iraq becomes a free, just, prosperous country and is able to support and protect itself without American help. All Iraqis are happy with the new state of affairs and are looking forward to a brighter, Hussien-free future. What will that mean for America's foriegn policy? Will that mean that they are justified in enacting regime change in other despotic countries? Will it mean that America ought to become the world police, more or less?

It has been my opinion for the past few years that an aggressive foreign policy is both morally wrong and usually ineffective, but if things go well, I think I'd have a change of heart.

Iraq's not going to get better in the short-term. If we're lucky, within a decade. It's far too early to be making predictions now.

And in any case, 2,000+ dead soldiers and more angry populations do not justify another invasion of any other Middle-Eastern country.

And even Jon Stewart himself says that if you get your news only from his show, then that's just sad.

If the war in Iraq goes well, will that justify further US action in the mideast?
God no!
That is just retarded.

Iraq's not going to get better in the short-term. If we're lucky, within a decade. It's far too early to be making predictions now.

And in any case, 2,000+ dead soldiers and more angry populations do not justify another invasion of any other Middle-Eastern country.

But what if, hypothetically, Iraq does get better? What if those 2,000 gave their lives so that others could live?

And even Jon Stewart himself says that if you get your news only from his show, then that's just sad.

No, what's sad is the The Daily Show is the only American news show available to Canadians.

Well all the talk radio people say you cann't critisize a president who is at war. So that means that every President from now on will make sure he/she is a war president.

If the war in Iraq goes well, will that justify further US action in the mideast?
At the very bottom of that question is an assumption that every place is ultimately the same, that the same sort of concept (Invent threat, bomb place, take over place, stay until success) would work everywhere.

The world is more complex than that.

Well all the talk radio people say you cann't critisize a president who is at war. So that means that every President from now on will make sure he/she is a war president.

It is advantageous for a political leader to have some sort of crises to deal with. It could be war, or it could be something else. If the people think that their government is protecting them from some sort of calamity, it makes the government much more likely to get away with whatever stupid/immoral things it is doing.

Iraq's not going to get better in the short-term. If we're lucky, within a decade. It's far too early to be making predictions now.

And in any case, 2,000+ dead soldiers and more angry populations do not justify another invasion of any other Middle-Eastern country.

And even Jon Stewart himself says that if you get your news only from his show, then that's just sad.
2000 Dead soldiers shouldn't come into it.

The wrong reasons for going to war should.

No, what's sad is the The Daily Show is the only American news show available to Canadians.
I'm not sure whether I would call The Daily Show a news show.

Read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm), maybe it fits the bill a bit better.

Yes.

Syria is next. Not because Iran isn't a threat, but the nuke threat can be stopped without an invasion, just a single night of bombing raids put them on the back burner again.

However, Syria is going around assassinating political leaders in other countries, supporting and arming terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel, AND with the downfall of this single regime we can establish a large sector of peaceful countries in the northern parts of the Middle East, simply by eliminating their dictatorship and repeating the Iraq policy there... Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel would all immediately notice a huge decrease in terrorist troubles the month after Syria's secret and invasive foreign insurgency agency is taken out of commission.

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. - Howard Zinn

At the very bottom of that question is an assumption that every place is ultimately the same, that the same sort of concept (Invent threat, bomb place, take over place, stay until success) would work everywhere.

The world is more complex than that.

It's certainly true that what works in one place may not work in another, but if the Americans prove themselves capable of making Iraq a better place, wouldn't that mean that the Iraq war was the right thing to do and that the Americans would be right in at least trying to make things better for other oppressed people?

at this point, I'm convinced that the existence of cheese on the moon will be used to justify further US action in the mideast. though some people will be more skeptical about the cheese this time, and there'll be some more opposition, but all the same it will be used, and successfully. just you wait!

for the record, I agree that there is cheese on the moon - in fact the whole thing is MADE of it - I just don't see that as being a threat to us.

And even Jon Stewart himself says that if you get your news only from his show, then that's just sad.

But I love The Daily Show. Its the only way I watch the news because its not sucky and boring...

It's certainly true that what works in one place may not work in another, but if the Americans prove themselves capable of making Iraq a better place, wouldn't that mean that the Iraq war was the right thing to do and that the Americans would be right in at least trying to make things better for other oppressed people?
No.
It is primarily thanks to the Iraqis if this all works out well. Americans had much less to do with it. They can destroy, but they can't create something like this.

And besides, there is still the small matter of more than 30,000 people who died, and more to come - those people haven't profited from the war, and neither have those that suffered under the occupation in one way or another.

"Goes well" for whom? Towards what?

"Goes well" for whom? Towards what?
...Iraq becomes a free, just, prosperous country and is able to support and protect itself without American help. All Iraqis are happy with the new state of affairs and are looking forward to a brighter, Hussien-free future...
.

No.
It is primarily thanks to the Iraqis if this all works out well. Americans had much less to do with it. They can destroy, but they can't create something like this.

And besides, there is still the small matter of more than 30,000 people who died, and more to come - those people haven't profited from the war, and neither have those that suffered under the occupation in one way or another.

If the Iraqis are mainly responsible for the successes of this war, why didn't they rise up and overthrow Saddam themselves? It's reasonable to assume that most Iraqis disliked him, but they seemed incapable of doing away with him themselves. Foreign intervention was necessary to get things going.

Certainly there have been people who have suffered and died due to America's actions, but do the numbers even compare to all the people who died because of Saddam? I'm starting to think that, if Iraq becomes what is commonly called a democratic country, there will be no way to say that Saddam should have been left in power.

If the Iraqis are mainly responsible for the successes of this war, why didn't they rise up and overthrow Saddam themselves?
They tried, remember? Bush Sr. told them to do it, and then he left them to their own devices.
They got slaughtered.

It's reasonable to assume that most Iraqis disliked him, but they seemed incapable of doing away with him themselves. Foreign intervention was necessary to get things going.
Foreign Intervention, yes. US unilateral attack on a country for essentially fictitious reasons, no.
Don't get me wrong, I think that enabling peoples to get rid of dictatorships is a good thing - but there is better ways of doing it, and war should be the very last of options, not the first or second.

Ultimately, you're saying that if Iraq works out, PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) is a good thing.

Certainly there have been people who have suffered and died due to America's actions, but do the numbers even compare to all the people who died because of Saddam? I'm starting to think that, if Iraq becomes what is commonly called a democratic country, there will be no way to say that Saddam should have been left in power.
Again, I agree. Although some people have been starting to do the numbers, and came to the conclusion that Iraq today isn't really any nicer than Iraq under Saddam.
I won't get involved in that argument, simply because I value democracy so much, and I don't want to say things that suggest I don't.

Obviously, I should have read the post more carefully. Thank you for pointing that out, Neu Leonstein, and for not slipping in an insulting comment, though it would have been deserved.

With that clarification in mind, considering the costs (tens of thousands dead, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted) and the utter oddity of such an occurrence (going by current events there, and my opinions regarding the motives and interests of the major players), no, the Iraq example would not be one to emulate.

The fact that one manages to get really, really lucky does not mean that one should gamble with catastrophe again.

If the Iraqis are mainly responsible for the successes of this war, why didn't they rise up and overthrow Saddam themselves? It's reasonable to assume that most Iraqis disliked him, but they seemed incapable of doing away with him themselves. Foreign intervention was necessary to get things going.

Certainly there have been people who have suffered and died due to America's actions, but do the numbers even compare to all the people who died because of Saddam? I'm starting to think that, if Iraq becomes what is commonly called a democratic country, there will be no way to say that Saddam should have been left in power.

Not only do the numbers compare, but since the average deaths caused by hussein and his people from 1991-2003 is lower than the average killed since the US invasion.

The total death rate is up too.

And you can bet that saddam didn't go around wounding people, as opposed to the 50k wounded Iraqi's because of the war.

And then throw in 2000 dead americans, 26000 wounded americans, and half a billion dollars to bring iraq close to as good as it was under saddam, though not all the way there.

And according to that logic, neither the American Revolutionary War nor the American Civil War would have been worth fighting for either. :rolleyes:

And according to that logic, neither the American Revolutionary War nor the American Civil War would have been worth fighting for either. :rolleyes:

According to what logic, exactly? All I gave were some numbers.

Whats the difference between the revolutionary and civil wars, and the Iraq war? The two former were to help ourselves, not others. We choose to free ourselves from the British. While we didn't choose to enter the Civil war, our effort went into it to preserving the union, when we could have tried to let the confederates stay seperate.

Dead americans and wasted american dollars aren't worth a possible iraqi future thats a bit brighter. Dead americans and spent american dollars are worth a possibly brighter future for ourselves.

Good for you, you ego-centrist. Why waste any effort on the rest humanity at all, ever?

No reason to stop slavery, they aren't us. No reason to help England in WW2 Europe, they aren’t us.

No reason for Virginia to help New York in the revolutionary war, because they aren't us.


Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Good for you, you ego-centrist. Why waste any effort on the rest humanity at all, ever?

No reason to stop slavery, they aren't us. No reason to help England in WW2 Europe, they aren’t us.

No reason for Virginia to help New York in the revolutionary war, because they aren't us.


Pathetic. :rolleyes:

We didn't enter the civil war to stop slavery, it was a by-product, one to help us win the war at that. I support it because it helped us win the war(the union, that is). And, they are american's too, so whats your point? Slavery in another land, yes, I could care little about.

Again, England. We helped them because they were our ally in ww2. We were forced into ww2, and helping England helped us win the war in the long run. And winning ww2 helped us in the long run, so it all worked out.

Whats this about Virginia and new york? Who isn't us? Virginia and New york are both parts of America. If I was a huge states right person, I probably wouldn't want my state doing something to only help another state, with no benefit to my state. You really should work on your examples...

Pathetic, why? I want whats best for me. Whats best for america is usually good for me too, so I support it. If it doesn't help me in some way, why would I want to do it? I'm sorry, but altruism is just an unproductive theory in this world. If we lived in a communist world, where everyone really did try, I would totally be for altruism. Seeing as the vast majority of the world works under capitalist systems, both economically and in an abstract way, socially, I won't practice altruism.

Obviously you have to read more history.

England was only our ally in WW2 after we 'began' to help them. We 'officially' didn't help them until AFTER we were attacked by an ally of Germany. Because some people in America were saying what you were saying now...Stay out of it, it's none of our business etc.

If it's not good for me, I don't think we should do it. and so on and so forth.

As to the civil war, why should the north fight the south at all, it's not good to waste a lot of money and get a lot of our boys killed, surely it would have been better to let them seperate (according to your logic of counting numbers).

As to why Virginia wouldn’t have helped New York in the Revolutionary War by YOUR logic, is because they WERE NOT both equally Americans yet. They were New Yorkers and they were Virginians. Different colonies, with different governing bodies. They had no alliance yet. That's my point though. If they thought like YOU and your argument now, don't help anyone outside of ourselves etc., there wouldn't have been an America to begin with because the colonies would never have worked together.

Your isolationist philosophy is short sighted and inhumane. And like I said before, pathetic.

If the war in Iraq goes well, will that justify further US action in the mideast? no

Obviously you have to read more history.

England was our ally in WW2 because we 'decided' to help them. We 'officially' help them UNTIL we were attacked by an ally of Germany. Because some people in America were saying what you were saying now...

If it's not good for me, I don't think we should do it.

As to the civil war, why should the north fight the south at all, it's not good to waste a lot of money and get a lot of our boys killed, surely it would have been better to let them seperate (according to your logic of counting numbers).

As to why Virginia wouldn’t have helped New York in the Revolutionary War by YOUR logic, is because they WERE NOT both equally Americans yet. They were New Yorkers and they were Virginians. Different colonies, with different governing bodies. They had no alliance yet. That's my point though. If they thought like YOU and your argument now, don't help anyone outside of ourselves etc., there wouldn't have been an America to begin with because the colonies would never have worked together.

Your isolationist philosophy is short sighted and inhumane. And like I said before, pathetic.

Lend-lease, yippee. We lent them some destroyers, and got islands from them. I see lend-lease as an investment. Maybe it wasn't meant as such, but it worked out for us in the long run.

No, it wouldn't have been better for us to be seperate. We would have been two weak countries, instead of one nominally strong one. We wouldn't be a superpower today if we hadn't preserved the union. We probably would have ended up fighting a war with them anyways, sooner or later. Keeping the union together was worth the cost.

As to why Virginia would not helped New york, I'm not going to go into what others would do. I'm talking what I would do. If I was virginian, would I have supported helping New York in the revolution? If I thought that freedom from britain would have been beneficial to me. I'm not going to spend an hour thinking of whether or not I would have prefered to stay a colony or not, so I will leave it at that.

I'm not saying to never help anyone else. There just needs to be gain from it, gain worth the cost, worth the investment.

I don't have isolationist ideals. I'm all for trade, and getting involved in wars that benefit me. My idea's aren't short-sighted, they are directly the opposite. I make my choices based on what seems best for me, in the long run. Thats the only thing I base them on. Inhumane, I laugh at that. To be humane is completely subjective. I am a human, so I don't see how I can be Inhumane. If I don't fit your morals, good. I don't seek to fit in any morals, I'm trying to play it smart. Morals never help you do that directly, only rarely by accident, and more often fuck things up.

Its like donation versus investment. Donation is a more "humane" thing. One could also make a flawed argument that investment is short-sighted, because the person is just trying to make more money. However, investment helps the person, and the country, become more wealthy. Donation doesn't do this, or at least not nearly as well. Becoming more wealthy helps us all. I have beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, but I am a total supporter of trickle-down economics.

So use what emotion-filled words you wish at me, I don't honestly care. I'm doing whats best for me, and I will come out better for it.

At the very bottom of that question is an assumption that every place is ultimately the same, that the same sort of concept (Invent threat, bomb place, take over place, stay until success) would work everywhere.

The world is more complex than that.

Well, for a while there, the US were looking like they were ready to cook up some stories about Syria and weapons of mass destruction, but it seems that the US have pulled off a bit in those regards.

Afghanistan for all intensive purposes has actually gone quite well, when compared to Iraq, in 10 years time, you will see Afghanistan further ahead in all areas than Iraq.

But hey, it seems that when ever the US is excusively in charge of something, they royally balls it up to all manner of proportions.

Well, for a while there, the US were looking like they were ready to cook up some stories about Syria and weapons of mass destruction, but it seems that the US have pulled off a bit in those regards.

Afghanistan for all intensive purposes has actually gone quite well, when compared to Iraq, in 10 years time, you will see Afghanistan further ahead in all areas than Iraq.

But hey, it seems that when ever the US is excusively in charge of something, they royally balls it up to all manner of proportions.

I highly doubt things would be going much better if France and Germany had invaded Iraq, or even a coalition similar to the one in Afghanistan. Iraq is just a fucked up place, its like walking into a gang war and trying to get everyone to be friends. It doesn't matter who does it, the only way you can do it is to have way better guns, and way better gunners, and constantly have the threat of retaliation.

I highly doubt things would be going much better if France and Germany had invaded Iraq, or even a coalition similar to the one in Afghanistan. Iraq is just a fucked up place, its like walking into a gang war and trying to get everyone to be friends. It doesn't matter who does it, the only way you can do it is to have way better guns, and way better gunners, and constantly have the threat of retaliation.

The whole stuff up could have been avoided, like I said before, had the US used overwhelming force, atleast 200,000 to 250,000 troups; invade each town, lock it down, disarm the population, leave some troops to maintain order, along with some engineering detachments, the move onto the next village.

Its a simple process of capture, lock down, disarm and maintain order - the US defence force failed in the most basic of tasks - and only GWB and his cronies have themselves to blame.

The whole stuff up could have been avoided, like I said before, had the US used overwhelming force, atleast 200,000 to 250,000 troups; invade each town, lock it down, disarm the population, leave some troops to maintain order, along with some engineering detachments, the move onto the next village.

Its a simple process of capture, lock down, disarm and maintain order - the US defence force failed in the most basic of tasks - and only GWB and his cronies have themselves to blame.

It wouldn't have helped at all.

The Iraqi populace would have been angrier at the US forces, seeing them even less as liberators, and hence supporting the insurgency more. With even more support, the Insurgency would have no problem getting enough funds to smuggle arms through syria, etc.

It would have meant less short term deaths, more long term. Overwhelming force, no matter the practicality, would have a really bad image for the US army. Instead of driving out the bad Baath, the iraqi's would see the US as subjugating them.

I highly doubt things would be going much better if France and Germany had invaded Iraq, or even a coalition similar to the one in Afghanistan. Iraq is just a fucked up place, its like walking into a gang war and trying to get everyone to be friends. It doesn't matter who does it, the only way you can do it is to have way better guns, and way better gunners, and constantly have the threat of retaliation.

Not only do you need guns and gunners, you also need the will to use them. In order to do a right proper job of invading a country, you've got to go in there and deliberately slaughter men, women and children. The American people, to their great credit, do not want to have their soldiers committing such atrocities, so whenever America goes to war it is greatly handicapped by its inability to kill indiscriminately.

If a country with America's economic and military prowess had existed at a time when people were more willing to kill foreigners, it would have swiftly set out conquering the world. Instead, we have this rather unusual situation where one country is easily the most powerful one on the planet but is unwilling to wield its own power.

I think in last night's speech the president came as close as anyone will to saying he did something stupid. But as he said we can't change the stupid mistake so we have two choices. pull out and admit defeat or stay in and try for victory. If we stay in we have two choices, a bigger defeat or victory.

I don't care what anyone says. I lived through Nixon. This is dejavoo (sp?) all over again. Vietnamization 1. build a government 2. build an army 3 give the army our best weapons 4. pull out and declare victory. 5. helicopters by the thousands landing on carriers.

How (other than environment, ie weather, is this different?

I think in last night's speech the president came as close as anyone will to saying he did something stupid. But as he said we can't change the stupid mistake so we have two choices. pull out and admit defeat or stay in and try for victory. If we stay in we have two choices, a bigger defeat or victory.

I don't care what anyone says. I lived through Nixon. This is dejavoo (sp?) all over again. Vietnamization 1. build a government 2. build an army 3 give the army our best weapons 4. pull out and declare victory. 5. helicopters by the thousands landing on carriers.

How (other than environment, ie weather, is this different?

Ummm... Nixon didn't get us into Vietnam - that was the brainchild of John F. Kennedy, compounded by Lyndon Johnson, masterminded by Robert McNamara. Nixon got us OUT of Vietnam.

BTW, the strategy you outline worked quite well in Germany - we built a government, helped them get an army back on its feet, gave them high tech weapons (and eventually they built their own), and we never had to declare victory, because everyone liked how Germany turned out.

I don't care what anyone says. I lived through Nixon. This is dejavoo (sp?) all over again. Vietnamization 1. build a government 2. build an army 3 give the army our best weapons 4. pull out and declare victory. 5. helicopters by the thousands landing on carriers.

"vietnamization" is what we've done for every occupation, why not call in Germanization or Koreanization?

How (other than environment, ie weather, is this different?

they don't have the communist empire/a history of resistance on their side and this time we have a legit government on our side that people turn out to vote for under the threat of death