Lathanar Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Just a question, I understand the justification of removing a dictatorship from power, however is the expense, man power and loss of American life worth liberating the Iraqi's? They do not seem to show the want, will, or ambition to rule themselves peacefully and are constantly breaking out into secular violence. I understand that I am not over there and am not aware of every aspect of the situation, but from what I have been exposed to it seems like the Kurds are the only ones willing to rule themselves and so far is the only justification for what we've done. I think we could have accomplished much more by handling the situation in a way different from all out invasion like we did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 I understand the justification of removing a dictatorship from power, however is the expense, man power and loss of American life worth liberating the Iraqi's?The only justification for it, as a national project, is in terms of America's interests. If the region melts down into Shiite v. Sunni chaos and a fanatical Islamist Shiite regime rises to take over the country, then that would be utterly contrary to our interest. On the other hand, if (I hate totally mythical hypotheticals) they actually turn into a semi-civilized country which is no worse than Jordan or Turkey, that would be a good outcome (at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of American wealth destroyed). The proper thing to have done back in 2003 would have been to recognise the existing government of Kurdistan and the Kurdish constitution as the legal government of Iraq, but that horse is out of the barn. Multiple this cost by 40 or so, and we could free Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus, Noth Korea, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan... The noble goal of freeing oppressed nations simply is not the proper function of government. What distinguishes Iran, North Korea and Syria is that these three nations in particular are an actual threat to the US (unlike Zimbabwe). Iraq is now a threat to the US in the way that Afghanistan is and potentially could be -- an uncontrolled breeding ground for terrorist attacks against the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatdogs12 Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 The only justification for it, as a national project, is in terms of America's interests. If the region melts down into Shiite v. Sunni chaos and a fanatical Islamist Shiite regime rises to take over the country, then that would be utterly contrary to our interest. On the other hand, if (I hate totally mythical hypotheticals) they actually turn into a semi-civilized country which is no worse than Jordan or Turkey, that would be a good outcome (at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of American wealth destroyed). The proper thing to have done back in 2003 would have been to recognise the existing government of Kurdistan and the Kurdish constitution as the legal government of Iraq, but that horse is out of the barn. Multiple this cost by 40 or so, and we could free Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus, Noth Korea, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan... The noble goal of freeing oppressed nations simply is not the proper function of government. What distinguishes Iran, North Korea and Syria is that these three nations in particular are an actual threat to the US (unlike Zimbabwe). Iraq is now a threat to the US in the way that Afghanistan is and potentially could be -- an uncontrolled breeding ground for terrorist attacks against the US. I actually think this is a very interesting point. Give money to the rational people and help them take over. The Kurds seem to be much more rational than the best of the Islamic factions out there. I wonder what would have happended if we gave them a few billion dollars, even 30 or 40 billion... Not sure how it would have worked out but it's an interesting idea, because I think that the way things are now in Iraq it seems likely to have a long term (and def. not a short term) positive outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 I actually think this is a very interesting point. Give money to the rational people and help them take over. The Kurds seem to be much more rational than the best of the Islamic factions out there. I wonder what would have happended if we gave them a few billion dollars, even 30 or 40 billion... Not sure how it would have worked out but it's an interesting idea, because I think that the way things are now in Iraq it seems likely to have a long term (and def. not a short term) positive outcome. Yes, I just don't think you could ever 'liberate' an irrational society. We're replacing a dictator with a secular state who wish to rule through religion. I don't think any country should undergo our style of regime change unless it has a population base ready to take over the mantle of true freedom and a rational society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 we could free Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus, Noth Korea, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan... I don't know about the other countries, but when it comes to Belarus - the majority of citizens themselves doesn't want to be freed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles2112 Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Being in a more humorous mood...I voted for "waiting for diplomacy and the U.N." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.