Quote:

JQ said:
It's amazing how you guys can pick up on Europe's business interests, but "America's always acted in the interest of Democracy." Washington doesn't give a shit about Democracy in the region, or the lives of the people. This whole war has been about control of the region, and at best, maintaining stability in the region for our oil interests.



Because the U.S. fought this war at an enormous cost, and it will spend at least 15 to 20 years attempting to break even on any benefit from the war in Iraq.

If we were going to occupy Iraq under our indefinite "protection" for the next 20 or 40 years, then I might be more inclined to agree with your skepticism regarding U.S. policy, and alleged greed, in invading Iraq.

But I still credit Bush with having the courage to defy UN/French/German/Russian obstructionism, for putting out a fire, before it became a 1914 Sarajevo, or a September 1939 Poland, or a 1979 Cambodia, or a December 2002 North Korea. And as has been pointed out, it has already prevented a 2004 or 2005 nuclear Libya.

I actually like you JQ, I think among the liberals who post here, you are among those who most try to weigh the issue and actually discuss it.

But I disagree on this point, and think that whatever the U.S. may have gained in this war, it has sacrificed a relatively small cost (in proportion to other wars) but still precious cost, in lives, and a much greater cost in dollars and diplomatic alienation, because it truly wants to seed democracy in the Middle East, as it did in Eastern Europe at the end of WW I, and in Germany and Japan at the end of WW II.

We tried to respect the U.N. wishes for the last 20 years in the Middle East. As appeasing but ineffectual as that was.

But after 9-11, the price of such acquiescence, just watching the cancer spread, and then having the Muslim world hate us regardless, FOR WORKING WITHIN the U.N. parameters, can be seen. We maintained a limited presence, in compliance with U.N. paramaters, and then the Muslim world hates us for keeping troops there, even in a limited capacity. So if we'd just taken Baghdad in 1991, there would have been no rationalization for 9-11, because our troops would have deposed Saddam in 1991, and American presence on the Arabian peninsula (in Al Qaida's words, infidel Crusaders in "the heart of Islam") would have been long gone, removing the rationalization for 9-11.
The price of such ineffectual but diplomatic complacency with the U.N. and other questionable allies of the United States, is just too high.

So until the other nations of the world begin to act in a more proactive and decisive way of dealing with global crises, and not letting them fester because of U.N. inaction for 12 years or more, despite blatant defiance and genocide, I again have to say:



Quote:

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
the us policy at least removed a brutal dictator and saved thousands from torture and murder for generations to come. whatever the motives i am pleased with the outcome.



I couldn't agree more, britney.