I think we had better reasons for bombing and invading Iraq:
- Saddam had attacked our allies.
- Saddam was still killing the Kurds and Shiites.
- The USA was still maintaining the No Fly Zones. (no forseeable end in sight)
- Iraq has lots of oil and we for better or worse need oil price stability to ensure our economy is stable and growing.
- For better or worse again, the USA supports fledging democarcies when practical.
- No attacks on allies, though they support indirectly some attacks on Israel. (but who in the Middle East doesn't...)
- Assad is killing people, no doubt there.
- USA has no stake at this time. (ie not half pregnant)
- USA has no stake at this time. (ie little/no oil in Syria)
- We should have learned from Iraq/Egypt/Afganistan that Democracies have a real hard time in the Middle East.
This Syria issue reminds me a lot more of the Balkans and the never ending problems in Africa. No real reason for the USA to get involved unless we are dedicated to being:
USA: World Police !!!
Thoughts?
CNN Syria Quagmire
CNN Why Not Act
CNN Why Act
G2A Still America's Fault
G2A Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria Compared
G2A WAR, What Is It Good For
G2A A Tale of 2 Daughters
G2A Peace Lovers are Confusing
G2A Libya To Help or Not To Help
9 comments:
Well, let's prime the pump...
"You’re seriously comparing Iraq’s pre-war problems to the mass slaughter Bush inflicted? The national interest test was met only by lying to trick the Congress and public. The Bush administration are war criminals." EF
"Maybe America is at fault for all the Syrian deaths so far… Perspective?" G2A Still America's Fault? G2A
"That’s silly." DG
"If the wealthy and powerful turn their backs and the poor die, whose fault is it? I thought the Liberals always blamed the Rich and Powerful." G2A
As you know, I always find it interesting when Liberals don't want to spend American dollars saving lives in other countries. Especially folks like Grace.
"How many more people are going to die because we get involved and then therefore others get involved. Way more than 400. Shame on us. Spending money on killing people again. We could spend that money on wind turbines, solar panels, health care, education or even just roads and bridges." Grace
C'mon, according to BBC over 100,000 folks have died already in Syria. Then she says that Obama's ignoring multiple 10's of 1,000s of deaths in Africa is proof that he knows how to avoid getting involved in wars in other countries.
Now if a fiscal Conservative said these things, I would see it as normal. Remember what one of my favorite Christian Conservatives told me... "Well John, we can't save everyone !!!"
But come on now, the Liberals are supposed to be for the Rich supporting the poor. When poor people suffer, according to them it always seems to be the Rich People's fault.
Yet here we are the richest country in the world, and these folks would rather spend the money on roads than on saving the lives of the innocent. I'll never understand them.
And Lord knows that the Liberals wanted to blame a million deaths in Iraq on the USA and Bush, even though US troops directly contributed to a very small number of the casualties. Remember all the crazy folks blowing things up on a regular basis back then and even now... CNN Iraq
So if poor people suffering in the USA is because the rich are greedy... How can Liberals rationalize hoarding the USA wealth for themselves while 100's of thousands of the less fortunate in other countries die?
Maybe even they believe that "We can't save everyone", though that would sound pretty funny coming from Grace or one of the other MPP authors... Since they seem to believe we can save every American, even against their will...
I had a high school teacher who was very big on the Satayana quote, roughly, "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What neither Santayana, nor my high school teacher went on to note, was that so are those who do.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Does that mean you think we should or should not get involved in this not so civil war?
History shows many many people die when we delay involvement (ie WWII, Africa, Balkans, Syria, etc), and many many people die when we get involved. (ie Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, etc)
So what should we do based on our historical lessons?
Try to save some people or accept the "we can't save everyone" view?
I am voting for the we can't save everyone view in this case since these folks have nothing that is critical to America's interest.
Are you willing to accept that view there and here in America?
Or do you think we can save everyone in America? Thoughts?
The thing about history is that at any given time it can be used to provide a justification for just about any course of action.
--Hiram
So you are undecided? Interesting...
How about considering each foreign policy decision on its own merits? Yes, a consistently rational policy would be nice, perhaps even desirable, but each of these situations is sufficiently unique, I believe, to be decided on its own merits. Iraq, I think, was a war for the right reasons. WMD were found, but most of them, I think, ended up in Syria, which is why somebody used them the other day. Not a reason to go to war of any kind. The usual rule about when your enemies are destroying themselves, you let them, applies here. The lamest possible excuse would be to save Obama's pride, and that appears to be what's driving this more than anything else.
Post a Comment