What the flying ? We're giving Bush credit for getting Syria out of Lebanon now? ing WOW.
I think the thinking was not that the US will screw up the region more or less. I think what's laughable is the US thinking they could just simply walk in there, be greeted as liberators, forcefully install a democracy, and all of a sudden the entire region would simply follow along... delusional I tell you.
I don't recall anyone suggesting it was that simple...
America.....fock yeah
All the more reason for the US to stay out of the nation-building game in the region. The ME is screwed up and will always be screwed up, so why go out of our way to make ourselves part of their problems?
The question isn't as simple as that. It's also whether it's cost effective.
Sure, either we need to go all in Soviet style (not that they were hugely successful either), or stay the heck out, cause there isn't any real way to nation-build unless you fully commit, which is expensive, both financially, politically and with personnel.
It makes more sense to not try to nation build.
Then you are incredibly ignorant.
I do, specially when they were trying to 'sell' the war...
"spreading democracy in the ME"
... in the interest of US oil security.
...or even desirable. Our closest allies in the region, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are repressive regimes. They help to advance our policies and protect our interests in the region. I don't know what you think is going to happen when you give a few tens of millions of followers of Islam the vote, but I can almost assure you it won't be pretty from the standpoint of American interests.
Even if it's "cost effective" and in the "best interest" of the someone's strategic thinking, should it be done? One can think of many invasions that could be justified along those lines. If you open up the possibilities of American state aggression to include "spreading democracy" by overthrowing two bit dictators, then is there a war that cannot be justified?
Bonus question: How is any of this related to national defense?
Gee, I wonder why the rest of the world viewed the U.S. as imperialistic...
Never understood the war for oil argument. That's not exactly what you said but some people do. Ever. Ever.
Bombing the Iraq oil fields until there was nothing left and bombing them every time someone tried to rebuild them would have been in the interest of US oil. We certainly could have and no one else in the world would have given a damn. We'd been periodically blowing up crap all over Iraq for no reason under Clinton for years.
If you want prices to go up you blow up supply, not take over it.
And if they just wanted more oil there are plenty of other much cheaper ways of doing it. They had a Republican majority, they could have pushed drilling in Alaska. That would have been a lot easier than waging war in the middle east.
No, IMHO the reason we went into Iraq was because Bush was butthurt at Saddam and wanted to go on a crusade in the middle east.
Last edited by angrydude; 06-16-2009 at 01:37 AM.
As far as the bonus question goes, there's a theory backed up by some evidence that democracies are less wont to war against each other.
But yes, I agree that even if it WERE cost effective, and we could do it in a moment's notice, that doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD do it, or even give us the 'moral authority' to do so.
why was Bush butthurt at Saddam?
Tried to kill his dad?why was Bush butthurt at Saddam?
I always leaned more towards the "bush gave in to pressure from daddy's cronies who thought there was unfinished business" theory.
Man, after 6 months of powder-puff words, I forgot what real leadership sounded like.
Oops.
hey, saving Kuwait was never about oil. It was about spreading democracy in the ME.
Damn. Look at this little gem I found.
Al Gore, in 1992, criticizing Bush Sr for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism.
.........just not in Kuwait. Monarchs who we get along with can stay.
Its not like we should really expect the gov't to remove friends from office...
Democracy is not the end all of government, and spreading democracy blindly isn't a good goal. Now, saying that you wanted to replace corrupt dictatorships with good democracies while leaving the alternate forms of government that are working well, thats kinda maybe a decent goal.
I agree, spreading democracy blindly isn't a good goal. When and where we try is very much calculated, and can usually be characterized by the presences of a non-U.S. friendly government and the presence of natural resources.
Of course the U.S. is hardly alone in doing this, as every country that ever qualified as a global power has tried at some point during their history.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
