Thread: Why We Fight And Why We Shouldn't

This thread is for the discussion on the Iraq war and interventionism, its complexity, and its stranglehold over our economy, and also our politics.

Our story begins in 1952, when the United States takes measures to secure South Korea from the Communist North Korea. After several years of fighting, the "war", (in actuality it was not really a war considering the United States has not declared war since WWII) ended in a stalemate. Thousands of lives had been lost for nothing. That battle continues even today.

After Korea, comes Vietnam. Once again the United States tries to take action against a country that is seen as a threat because it seems like the Commies would take over. This battle was deemed necessary because of what US politicians feared known as a domino effect- in essence, all countries around Vietnam would fall to Communism as well if we failed in Vietnam. Well in 1975, the war ended. The United States called for its soldiers to come home after thousands were killed for the "just" cause of promoting democracy. Vietnam then fell to Communism. But lo and behold, the domino effect did not happen.

What does this have to do with anything? Well since after World War II the United States adopted a foreign policy of interventionism and undeclared wars, that is to intervene in other countries when we see it fit. The problem is, that as a superpower, we should never be promoting freedom and peace through bullying and war. There are many many wars going on in the world at any given time, and the United States is involved in almost every single one of them, sometimes even contributing to both sides of a conflict.

Now I will skip to our most recent endeavor into Iraq. Most people think that the Iraq "War" started in 2003, in reality, it started in 1991 with the UN coalition attack on Iraq. Most will agree that the Persian Gulf War was for one thing, oil. We could not allow a hostile Middle Eastern country to be in control of alot, and I mean ALOT of oil. We had seen this before in our history of course. In 1953 the US took a part in the overthrowing of the elected government of Iran because they wanted to retake their own oil back from British oil companies. Well, the problem with here is that the person we put into power in Iran may have been pro-West, but he was also a horrible leader and very harsh to his people. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and was a result of hatred towards America.

Back to Iraq, so anyways we attack Iraq because of oil and their atrocities to the Kuwaiti people. But wait, didn't we support Iraq with their VERY violent war against Iran in 1980? Why yes we did, we even gave them biological and chemical weapons to use against Iran. This put Saddam into the state of mind that we would support whatever Iraq wanted to in the Middle East. But how can we blame them? I mean we were very close allies with Iraq giving them weapons, yet we condemn them for killing Kurds and wanting oil?

Now, in 2003, we escalate the war. We give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now this war is justified by the "facts" that Saddam has WMDs,were involved with Al Qaeda,had broke UN resolutions, and was a nation security threat.. Now only one of those allegations was true. Now lets prove the rest false.

1.First off, WMDs were never found in Iraq. Even if they were, why not go after Russia for the thousands of nuclear weapons that they just "lost"?

2.Iraq and Al Qaeda HATED eachother, because Iraq would not allow them entrance since they thought that Al Qaeda would be a threat to the secular state that was Iraq. And now that we have destroyed a hated regime, Al Qaeda is FREE to fill the vacuum.

3. Iraq was NEVER a threat to anybody. In 2003 they had one FIFTH of the army they once had in 1991, they had outdated weaponry, no air force, no navy, nothing.

4. Yes Iraq broke UN resolutions, but guess what? So has Japan, Israel, Turkey, even the US, etc. Some people will specifically state Resolution 688 which foolish people believe gave us the rights to set up no-fly zones in Iraq. Well guess what? We flew over those fly zones, over 40,000 missions, bombing the hell out of Iraq. Of course Iraq tried to shoot our planes down, but not ONE single plane was every shot down. This should tell you something- Iraq was a third world country that could not even defend itself.

So, now in 2008 people want us to stay in Iraq to "fix" it and to complete our "mission" Well now, some forget that Iraq was never perfect in the first place. Iraq was set up in the early 1900s by British, putting three secular groups together which absolutely HATED eachother. Next, the exscuse that we must complete our misson- It is hard to complete our mission because our mission changes, we said we went into Iraq to find WMDs and take out a nation security threat, but now we are saying that we went there to promote democracy... huh?

This is where our undeclared war has led us- Bankruptcy. People have not felt it yet because to fund our war we have borrowed money so that people would not be so quick to go up in arms over it. Yet now we are starting to see. Recession, out of control inflation, and a growing multi-trillion dollar debt.

How can we promote democracy through violence, simply put, we cannot. A Shiite democracy will not take place because we will not let it happen. The Iraqi people are given no self determination in their own government and no motivation to take action because we keep funding their country.

People are foolish to think that terrorism will decrease, now that we have killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis and taken over their land, we are more than likely than EVER to be attacked.

Now feel free to discuss this issue, but be kind to one another. I am looking for a good debate, not a battle.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

This thread is for the discussion on the Iraq war and interventionism, its complexity, and its stranglehold over our economy, and also our politics.

Our story begins in 1952, when the United States takes measures to secure South Korea from the Communist North Korea. After several years of fighting, the "war", (in actuality it was not really a war considering the United States has not declared war since WWII) ended in a stalemate. Thousands of lives had been lost for nothing. That battle continues even today.

After Korea, comes Vietnam. Once again the United States tries to take action against a country that is seen as a threat because it seems like the Commies would take over. This battle was deemed necessary because of what US politicians feared known as a domino effect- in essence, all countries around Vietnam would fall to Communism as well if we failed in Vietnam. Well in 1975, the war ended. The United States called for its soldiers to come home after thousands were killed for the "just" cause of promoting democracy. Vietnam then fell to Communism. But lo and behold, the domino effect did not happen.

What does this have to do with anything? Well since after World War II the United States adopted a foreign policy of interventionism and undeclared wars, that is to intervene in other countries when we see it fit. The problem is, that as a superpower, we should never be promoting freedom and peace through bullying and war. There are many many wars going on in the world at any given time, and the United States is involved in almost every single one of them, sometimes even contributing to both sides of a conflict.

Now I will skip to our most recent endeavor into Iraq. Most people think that the Iraq "War" started in 2003, in reality, it started in 1991 with the UN coalition attack on Iraq. Most will agree that the Persian Gulf War was for one thing, oil. We could not allow a hostile Middle Eastern country to be in control of alot, and I mean ALOT of oil. We had seen this before in our history of course. In 1953 the US took a part in the overthrowing of the elected government of Iran because they wanted to retake their own oil back from British oil companies. Well, the problem with here is that the person we put into power in Iran may have been pro-West, but he was also a horrible leader and very harsh to his people. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and was a result of hatred towards America.

Back to Iraq, so anyways we attack Iraq because of oil and their atrocities to the Kuwaiti people. But wait, didn't we support Iraq with their VERY violent war against Iran in 1980? Why yes we did, we even gave them biological and chemical weapons to use against Iran. This put Saddam into the state of mind that we would support whatever Iraq wanted to in the Middle East. But how can we blame them? I mean we were very close allies with Iraq giving them weapons, yet we condemn them for killing Kurds and wanting oil?

Now, in 2003, we escalate the war. We give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now this war is justified by the "facts" that Saddam has WMDs,were involved with Al Qaeda,had broke UN resolutions, and was a nation security threat.. Now only one of those allegations was true. Now lets prove the rest false.

1.First off, WMDs were never found in Iraq. Even if they were, why not go after Russia for the thousands of nuclear weapons that they just "lost"?

2.Iraq and Al Qaeda HATED eachother, because Iraq would not allow them entrance since they thought that Al Qaeda would be a threat to the secular state that was Iraq. And now that we have destroyed a hated regime, Al Qaeda is FREE to fill the vacuum.

3. Iraq was NEVER a threat to anybody. In 2003 they had one FIFTH of the army they once had in 1991, they had outdated weaponry, no air force, no navy, nothing.

4. Yes Iraq broke UN resolutions, but guess what? So has Japan, Israel, Turkey, even the US, etc. Some people will specifically state Resolution 688 which foolish people believe gave us the rights to set up no-fly zones in Iraq. Well guess what? We flew over those fly zones, over 40,000 missions, bombing the hell out of Iraq. Of course Iraq tried to shoot our planes down, but not ONE single plane was every shot down. This should tell you something- Iraq was a third world country that could not even defend itself.

So, now in 2008 people want us to stay in Iraq to "fix" it and to complete our "mission" Well now, some forget that Iraq was never perfect in the first place. Iraq was set up in the early 1900s by British, putting three secular groups together which absolutely HATED eachother. Next, the exscuse that we must complete our misson- It is hard to complete our mission because our mission changes, we said we went into Iraq to find WMDs and take out a nation security threat, but now we are saying that we went there to promote democracy... huh?

This is where our undeclared war has led us- Bankruptcy. People have not felt it yet because to fund our war we have borrowed money so that people would not be so quick to go up in arms over it. Yet now we are starting to see. Recession, out of control inflation, and a growing multi-trillion dollar debt.

How can we promote democracy through violence, simply put, we cannot. A Shiite democracy will not take place because we will not let it happen. The Iraqi people are given no self determination in their own government and no motivation to take action because we keep funding their country.

People are foolish to think that terrorism will decrease, now that we have killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis and taken over their land, we are more than likely than EVER to be attacked.

Now feel free to discuss this issue, but be kind to one another. I am looking for a good debate, not a battle.

Excellent post.

Bumping this so I can freaking debate with somebody.

Though it's extremely important for people to understand that the invasion/liberation/democratization of Iraq was an agenda supported and actively pursued by the current administration before they even came into power (see: Letter to President Clinton 1/26/1998, Letter to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott 5/29/1998*), the focus of the debate right now should be about how we proceed in and out of Iraq. I've always felt the invasion was a bad idea, but it still happened and the discussion about WHY it was a bad idea is more academic than functional in the context of the current and future situation(s) in Iraq.
Really what we need at this point is to examine the situation comprehensively, pragmatically, and with whatever amount of intuitive wisdom we can muster. We can start with questions like: What do we really mean to accomplish in Iraq?
What do you think, GFP?


*(Note the signatories to the 1998 letters:
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 2001-2006
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, 2001-2005
John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-2006
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2007-
Also: Elliot Abrams, Jeffrey Bergner, Paula Dobriansky, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, and William Schneider Jr. (all became members of the Bush Jr. administration) -- only 4 of the 19 signatories to the two letters did not achieve direct positions within the administration.)
This 1997 document says a lot (as does the name of the organization), particularly when you note that it is signed by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush, among others. I almost want to get back into this because the issue of exploiting 9/11 to implement a preexisting political agenda is so real and so wrong, but like I said it only goes so far in helping address the current challenges in Iraq.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

This thread is for the discussion on the Iraq war and interventionism, its complexity, and its stranglehold over our economy, and also our politics.

Our story begins in 1952, when the United States takes measures to secure South Korea from the Communist North Korea. After several years of fighting, the "war", (in actuality it was not really a war considering the United States has not declared war since WWII) ended in a stalemate. Thousands of lives had been lost for nothing. That battle continues even today.

After Korea, comes Vietnam. Once again the United States tries to take action against a country that is seen as a threat because it seems like the Commies would take over. This battle was deemed necessary because of what US politicians feared known as a domino effect- in essence, all countries around Vietnam would fall to Communism as well if we failed in Vietnam. Well in 1975, the war ended. The United States called for its soldiers to come home after thousands were killed for the "just" cause of promoting democracy. Vietnam then fell to Communism. But lo and behold, the domino effect did not happen.

What does this have to do with anything? Well since after World War II the United States adopted a foreign policy of interventionism and undeclared wars, that is to intervene in other countries when we see it fit. The problem is, that as a superpower, we should never be promoting freedom and peace through bullying and war. There are many many wars going on in the world at any given time, and the United States is involved in almost every single one of them, sometimes even contributing to both sides of a conflict.

Now I will skip to our most recent endeavor into Iraq. Most people think that the Iraq "War" started in 2003, in reality, it started in 1991 with the UN coalition attack on Iraq. Most will agree that the Persian Gulf War was for one thing, oil. We could not allow a hostile Middle Eastern country to be in control of alot, and I mean ALOT of oil. We had seen this before in our history of course. In 1953 the US took a part in the overthrowing of the elected government of Iran because they wanted to retake their own oil back from British oil companies. Well, the problem with here is that the person we put into power in Iran may have been pro-West, but he was also a horrible leader and very harsh to his people. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and was a result of hatred towards America.

Back to Iraq, so anyways we attack Iraq because of oil and their atrocities to the Kuwaiti people. But wait, didn't we support Iraq with their VERY violent war against Iran in 1980? Why yes we did, we even gave them biological and chemical weapons to use against Iran. This put Saddam into the state of mind that we would support whatever Iraq wanted to in the Middle East. But how can we blame them? I mean we were very close allies with Iraq giving them weapons, yet we condemn them for killing Kurds and wanting oil?

Now, in 2003, we escalate the war. We give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now this war is justified by the "facts" that Saddam has WMDs,were involved with Al Qaeda,had broke UN resolutions, and was a nation security threat.. Now only one of those allegations was true. Now lets prove the rest false.

1.First off, WMDs were never found in Iraq. Even if they were, why not go after Russia for the thousands of nuclear weapons that they just "lost"?

2.Iraq and Al Qaeda HATED eachother, because Iraq would not allow them entrance since they thought that Al Qaeda would be a threat to the secular state that was Iraq. And now that we have destroyed a hated regime, Al Qaeda is FREE to fill the vacuum.

3. Iraq was NEVER a threat to anybody. In 2003 they had one FIFTH of the army they once had in 1991, they had outdated weaponry, no air force, no navy, nothing.

4. Yes Iraq broke UN resolutions, but guess what? So has Japan, Israel, Turkey, even the US, etc. Some people will specifically state Resolution 688 which foolish people believe gave us the rights to set up no-fly zones in Iraq. Well guess what? We flew over those fly zones, over 40,000 missions, bombing the hell out of Iraq. Of course Iraq tried to shoot our planes down, but not ONE single plane was every shot down. This should tell you something- Iraq was a third world country that could not even defend itself.

So, now in 2008 people want us to stay in Iraq to "fix" it and to complete our "mission" Well now, some forget that Iraq was never perfect in the first place. Iraq was set up in the early 1900s by British, putting three secular groups together which absolutely HATED eachother. Next, the exscuse that we must complete our misson- It is hard to complete our mission because our mission changes, we said we went into Iraq to find WMDs and take out a nation security threat, but now we are saying that we went there to promote democracy... huh?

This is where our undeclared war has led us- Bankruptcy. People have not felt it yet because to fund our war we have borrowed money so that people would not be so quick to go up in arms over it. Yet now we are starting to see. Recession, out of control inflation, and a growing multi-trillion dollar debt.

How can we promote democracy through violence, simply put, we cannot. A Shiite democracy will not take place because we will not let it happen. The Iraqi people are given no self determination in their own government and no motivation to take action because we keep funding their country.

People are foolish to think that terrorism will decrease, now that we have killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis and taken over their land, we are more than likely than EVER to be attacked.

Now feel free to discuss this issue, but be kind to one another. I am looking for a good debate, not a battle.

our government has always opperated under the pretense of manifest destiny. the only way to press the empirical desires of a nation bent on consumption is to fight and fight often.

i don't understand why this is suprising. we enter wars when it is financial beneficial to our biggest companies. i feel as thought the powers that be in this country think we can afford to run a huge debt because of the world bank. we [entities in this country] are the primary invester--why else would we be able to appoint the head every time? all we need to do is forclose through the WB and sell off the gold to the countries we made greedy through the spread of capitalism, or as our government says--democracy.

to be successful in this we the people need to be made to be distracted, uneducated, out of shape, each "group" seperated through "social Issues", in debt to our eyeballs. this renders us [we the people] unable to effectively check and balance our government.

the executive branch is running away with the couuntry. i fear that if we the people do not unite and truely hold our "leaders" accountable the free country we all love will be lost empirical tyrants. for as long as we the people can buy our happiness, we will bitch and moan but hell im buying another thing tomorrow.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Bumping this so I can freaking debate with somebody.

Sorry for the green.

I disagree with this entire post.

Not really.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Our story begins in 1952, when the United States takes measures to secure South Korea from the Communist North Korea. After several years of fighting, the "war", (in actuality it was not really a war considering the United States has not declared war since WWII) ended in a stalemate. Thousands of lives had been lost for nothing. That battle continues even today.

Ask the South Koreans if they'd rather be eating grass with their North Korean cousins before you say it was all for "nothing".

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

After Korea, comes Vietnam. Once again the United States tries to take action against a country that is seen as a threat because it seems like the Commies would take over. This battle was deemed necessary because of what US politicians feared known as a domino effect- in essence, all countries around Vietnam would fall to Communism as well if we failed in Vietnam. Well in 1975, the war ended. The United States called for its soldiers to come home after thousands were killed for the "just" cause of promoting democracy. Vietnam then fell to Communism. But lo and behold, the domino effect did not happen.

Actually, the US participation in the war ended in 1973, it took nearly two years, and the Democrats reneging on agreements to supply S. Vietnam with material aid, before the North finally kicked their asses.

Also....the end of freedom in Vietnam did indeed cause the dominos to fall in other lands, like Cambodia, and Laos, and that whole area has suffered under communist rule since.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

What does this have to do with anything?

Practically nothing, but you'll make something up, I suppose.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Well since after World War II the United States adopted a foreign policy of interventionism and undeclared wars, that is to intervene in other countries when we see it fit. The problem is, that as a superpower, we should never be promoting freedom and peace through bullying and war.

Right. As the communists strode through nation after nation after nation toppling governments and threatening our supply lines, the United States and the other free nations of the world should have ignored requests from our allies in those nations for help. Just like the free nations of europe ignored what Hilter was doing. Wonderful plan.

If you're a snail.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

There are many many wars going on in the world at any given time, and the United States is involved in almost every single one of them, sometimes even contributing to both sides of a conflict.

Right. Who else during the Cold War was also engaged in the majority of those conflicts?

That's right, your friend the Soviet Union. Perhaps if they hadn't been running around trying to secure strategic advantage against us in all those places the United States could have been free to leave those shit holes alone, too? Want to know why it was called the Cold War? Because it was an undeclared war between two major powers who could not afford to go toe-to-toe and slug it out, because our weapons were too extreme. So the wars were fought in smaller theaters for smaller current objectives, but with the opponents' eyes always on each other and on the big prize, the end of the other.

Your side lost, quit whining about how the winners managed to stay alive.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Now I will skip to our most recent endeavor into Iraq. Most people think that the Iraq "War" started in 2003, in reality, it started in 1991 with the UN coalition attack on Iraq.

Well, that's good to hear. That totally undermines all that crap I got sick of hearing about how Bush Lied and People Died. If it was just about finishing off the "Gulf War", then US actions were 100% perfectly justified. Or was a unanimous vote by the UN in support of that effort as bogus as all other UN votes always are?

Then again, the real justification for invading Iraq is this:

We don't need to justifiy entering any nation run by gangsters who seized political power at the point of a gun if our goal is to remove that gangster from power and/or life. Since the gangster had no legitimate claim to power, ANYONE who can depose him using force is as equally justified in doing so as the gangster was in the first place.

That's a fact of life. Don't live with it if you don't want to.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Most will agree that the Persian Gulf War was for one thing, oil. We could not allow a hostile Middle Eastern country to be in control of alot, and I mean ALOT of oil.

Oh, you're going to ignore the violent invasion of a minor country and the unamimous vote in the UN and head straight for the agitprop counter.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

We had seen this before in our history of course. In 1953 the US took a part in the overthrowing of the elected government of Iran because they wanted to retake their own oil back from British oil companies. Well, the problem with here is that the person we put into power in Iran may have been pro-West, but he was also a horrible leader and very harsh to his people. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and was a result of hatred towards America.

Not that it matters, you've already established that the Iraq War is an outgrowth of the Gulf War, thus must be, by inference, a legitimate conflict.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Back to Iraq, so anyways we attack Iraq because of oil and their atrocities to the Kuwaiti people. But wait, didn't we support Iraq with their VERY violent war against Iran in 1980?

So? We supported Stalin against Hitler.

Oh, wait, you probably liked Stalin.

Never mind. But for the rest of you, if you'll recall, Iran was run by a religious maniac intent on harming the US. Hiring Hussein to keep that other two-bit cesspool occupied was cheap, considering that we were fighting the real monster of the world at the time...not, not the US, we were fighting the USSR. And contrary to public belief, the USSR was indeed the "Evil Empire". (Who do you think it was that invaded Afghanland and initiated the chain of events that led to today's terrorism problems over there?)

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Why yes we did, we even gave them biological and chemical weapons to use against Iran. This put Saddam into the state of mind that we would support whatever Iraq wanted to in the Middle East. But how can we blame them?

Easy. Tools are supposed to stop working when you put them down.

Hmmmm....didn't we pull the plug on Saddam when the on-off switch didn't work? Yes, we did. Hussein's motor no longer runs.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

I mean we were very close allies with Iraq giving them weapons, yet we condemn them for killing Kurds and wanting oil?

Yes.

Too bad you people never condemned the USSR.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Now, in 2003, we escalate the war. We give Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now this war is justified by the "facts" that Saddam has WMDs,were involved with Al Qaeda,had broke UN resolutions, and was a nation security threat.. Now only one of those allegations was true. Now lets prove the rest false.

Why bother? YOU already showed that the current conflict was the natural extension of the not quite ended earlier one, and therefore you supplied the rational in favor of today's war.

The rest doesn't matter, once you've done that. It's window dressing.

Good job.

[QUOTE=GraspingForPeace;494449]So, now in 2008 people want us to stay in Iraq to "fix" it and to complete our "mission" [/qoute]

Yes. I'm sure that people who opposed the United States when we were protecting their sorry asses in the Cold War now want to see us abandon our obligations to the 22 million people of Iraq to whom we promised a chance at a better, freer life.

The question is: Why do you want to see millions of people get killed, injured, imprisoned, and displaced, just to see egg on the face of America?

Continued....

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Well now, some forget that Iraq was never perfect in the first place. Iraq was set up in the early 1900s by British, putting three secular groups together which absolutely HATED eachother. Next, the exscuse that we must complete our misson- It is hard to complete our mission because our mission changes, we said we went into Iraq to find WMDs and take out a nation security threat, but now we are saying that we went there to promote democracy... huh?

None of that matters.

We went in to Iraq for the unstated reason of putting troops on Iran's western border, and for the stated reason of eliminating Hussein. Since you've claimed that the resumption of major hostilities was justied as an extension of the never-completed Gulf War, you're not in a position to complain about other imaginary motives you may object to.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

This is where our undeclared war has led us- Bankruptcy.

No, it's where sixty years of socialism have brought us. Do try to keep the blame affixed where it belongs.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

People have not felt it yet because to fund our war we have borrowed money so that people would not be so quick to go up in arms over it. Yet now we are starting to see. Recession, out of control inflation, and a growing multi-trillion dollar debt.

The recession is being caused in large part because a huge number of truly stupid and greedy people took out bigger loans than they could afford from a small number of greedy and too smart for their own good people who pushed to sell those loans. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, as they have with the sub-prime mortgage problem, you can count on two things. Everything gets covered in chicken shit, and the bankers are demanding the government rob taxpayers to bail them out.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

How can we promote democracy through violence, simply put, we cannot.

Of course we can. Our democratic republic was born in blood and violence.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

A Shiite democracy will not take place because we will not let it happen. The Iraqi people are given no self determination in their own government and no motivation to take action because we keep funding their country.

Umm....15 million of 22 million Iraqis voted. That's what self-determination in a democracy means.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

People are foolish to think that terrorism will decrease, now that we have killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis and taken over their land, we are more than likely than EVER to be attacked.

We haven't killed 100,000 Iraqis, a lot of what you're counting are the people the terrorists have been blowing up, including retards and puppies. Nor have we "taken over their land". Iraq does have a government, and that government could request we leave if they wanted us to.

Since the recent troop surge actually worked, it's unlikely that the Iraqis would ask us to leave. Nothing suceeds like success, right?

Of course, it's totally irrelevant to discusss WHY we went into Iraq. I thought it was a damn stupid thing to do at the time, myself. Know what? Doesn't matter. The only issue to discuss is 'what next?"

What next? Do we run away and act like whipped puppies...then watch the people we promised protection to die, and our economy get destroyed as the resulting chaos in the Mid East drives the price of oil to $200 a barrel?

Or do we step up to our obligations and assist the Iraqis establisht the rule of law over their land and help them resolve the problems the stupid brits forced on them early in the last century? This is both the correct, and the mature course of action.

Worried about the state of the US economy? Start demanding the domestic social programs get cut back to their original spending levels. Which are zero.

I think I know why you're not gettin' much debate here - it's probably 'cause everyone agrees with you!

Yeah, you're essentially sayin' the same thing Ron Paul's sayin', with a few nuances. I've been sayin' the same thing, and so have a lot other people (with a brain cell - at least "one", you know - the one we didn't manage to kill off during the 60's, in spite of our best efforts).....

You know, it occurs to me, that this idea of "money buys influence", is another one of those fallacies that needs to be looked at under the microscope.

Just like the idea that "universal healthcare is evil", I mean, the reality there, is that we got it already! Only, someone's makin' a lot money off our illnesses, that they really shouldn't be makin', know what I'm sayin'?

But anyway, so, "interventionism" - is an extension of the concept of "foreign aid" - and therefore, "money buys influence". So, I mean, if we're not "exporting democracy", we're "exporting influence". Yes?

Nah dude, I'm a realist. The "reality", is that we've given Pakistan 10 billion or so in the last few years, and the reality also, is that we don't seem to have very much influence. Israel - 3 billion a year, not much influence. Egypt - more billions than that even, and not much influence. I mean, you see the repeating keywords there, right?

Nah, it seems to me, that you get a lot more influence, by making sure Pepsi Cola is being sold and bought in Iraq, than you do, propping up the Iraqi government with troops.

And then, consider this: remember those coupla mentally disabled suicide bombers, yesterday? Well, the people taking advantage of those poor innocent girls, and strapping bombs onto them and sending them to their deaths, those are the same type of people, who are trying to convnice me, that the war in Iraq is about United States national security.

Same sh**, right? It's like, here, strap on this bomb, go over there, and we'll tell you when and where to detonate. Only, you know, we do it with cruise missiles instead of nitrates and cat litter (and I guess that means, we get to spend a little more money on it), but the results, are the same. People die, in the most horrible of ways.

Well, I mean, you know, I don't like OBL much. I wanna see his head on a platter. I want something for my 4 trillion bucks, goddamit! So, there are some wars, you gotta fight. But, you gotta fight the right wars, and you gotta fight them in the right way.

Did you catch Ron Paul on C-SPAN today? That guy was great! He was freakin' merciless. on this topic of interventionism. He had one very classic sound bite about the "exportation" bit, I can't dredge it up right now, but if I find a YouTube of it, I'll post it. It was great, and I mean, he said it with such conviction too, right?

And yes, he had a lot to say on the topic of "empire" too.

Personal story about the Korean War. 1978. My father was a supervisor of a textile mill
in PA. He hired a Korean man who had just emigrated to the U.S. He brought his family along with him (wife, son and daughter). His name was "Oh" We couldn't pronounce his full name but anyway. He and his family became very good friends of ours, still are to this day. One weekend a year or so later he finally got to meet my grandfather who had fought in the Korean War. It was kind of awkward. Because Oh welled up with tears and in his broken english hugged my Grandfather and said "Thank you" and again "Thank You". There wasn't a dry eye among the adults in the room. He went on to explain his story from when he was a young man. That of his village and family who were rescued by Americans. He also told stories of family who disapeared, taken by the Communists. Oh and his family are currently American citizens prospering in this wonderful nation that saved their lives.
Anyone. Anyone, who questions why we fought and in the same breath suggests we lost the fight need only look at a map of the world and look at the Korean peninsula and look at the border that runs between it.
I am a military Dad. My son is serving the NAVY. I have other family serving inthe Marines in Iraq right now, second tour. He was shot in the 1st tourbut he went back. He
translates for his unit, he works with the Iraqi people. Someday. I don't know when but I hope my son and cousin have simular encounters as my Granfather did. That. Why we fight.