US Foreign Policy-Promoting democracy worldwide

[ACPlayer]

backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.

That is the reason now offered by those trying to rewrite history. If that had been the reason that Bush sold this idea on -- Most Americans would still not know which continent Iraq is on.

Does that answer the Sudan question.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.
------------------------------------------------------------
That is the reason now offered by those trying to rewrite history. If that had been the reason that Bush sold this idea on -- Most Americans would still not know which continent Iraq is on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am always amazed that you guys are more fixated on the reasons Bush used to sell the war, than on the actual humanitarian need of the Iraqi people for relief from a tyrant.

By the way, Bush DID use the humanitarian reason as a selling point, but as a minor selling point. Bush's emphasis or lack thereof in no way alters the actual degree of need of the Iraqi people for relief.

[ACPlayer]

I am always amazed that you guys are more fixated on the reasons Bush used to sell the war, than on the actual humanitarian need of the Iraqi people for relief from a tyrant.

The reasons used are very important. The calculation of human life taken, property destroyed, lives uprooted vs the stated political goals is the equation by which to evaluate the quality of the decision.

The major points have been proven false.

In addition, we have deeply strained relations with (former?) close allies, a far worse relationship with the muslim world, a greater chance of an enraged suicide bomber blowing himself up in Times Square, an Anarchist Police State presently in Iraq, a threat of civil war (which if it happens is likely to draw in Turkey and perhaps Syria) a loss of credibility of the White House and America.

The decision was deeply flawed.

Other than than the now all we can do is hope that something good comes out of it. FOr us and for the Iraqi.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.
------------------------------------------------------------
That is the reason now offered by those trying to rewrite history. If that had been the reason that Bush sold this idea on -- Most Americans would still not know which continent Iraq is on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am always amazed that you guys are more fixated on the reasons Bush used to sell the war, than on the actual humanitarian need of the Iraqi people for relief from a tyrant.

By the way, Bush DID use the humanitarian reason as a selling point, but as a minor selling point. Bush's emphasis or lack thereof in no way alters the actual degree of need of the Iraqi people for relief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if the need for relief is so important, why did we choose to invade Iraq vs. the Sudan?

[lehighguy]

Because people in Sudan blow eachother up and not us. The invasion of Iraq was based on a mixture of realist/idealist principles. The idealist part was fixing the region. The realist part was that if we fixed the region then there wouldn't be as many terrorists down the road. Darfur lascks the second realist plank.

We could pheasibly do both. Had opposistion to the Iraq war been less then Bush might have the political capital to start another war, but at present he does not.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
he realist part was that if we fixed the region then there wouldn't be as many terrorists down the road. Darfur lascks the second realist plank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly right. If you replace 'there wouldn't be as many terrorists down the road' with 'we will have easier access to substantial known oil reserves and a geographically important and strategic site in friendly hands' you might even be spot on.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I am always amazed that you guys are more fixated on the reasons Bush used to sell the war, than on the actual humanitarian need of the Iraqi people for relief from a tyrant.

By the way, Bush DID use the humanitarian reason as a selling point, but as a minor selling point. Bush's emphasis or lack thereof in no way alters the actual degree of need of the Iraqi people for relief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if the need for relief is so important, why did we choose to invade Iraq vs. the Sudan?

[/ QUOTE ]

[sirio11]

[Cyrus]

It's really quite simple when we get down to it. We have two choices when we posit the possible motives behind American foreign policy, now and in the past : (a) The United States wants to promote moral values and democracy in the world and to protect the weak against the strong, or (b) the United States wants to promote its interests.

If we accept the first assumption, nothing further needs to be debated -- about Vietnam, Grenada, Haiti, Chile, Laos, Somalia, Kosovo or Iraq. All is explained on the basis of America's "good intentions", which we may sometimes "not fully understand" and, hence, must be patient with it but still support it. Isn't a Disney panavisioon color spectacle neat?

The other option provides more incisive insights. Which are also less "pleasant". Sorry.

[MMMMMM]

Cytrus your analysis misses the possibility of: a) AND b). It doesn't always have to be either/or.

At no previous time in history have our interests been so tied, as they are now, to the growth of democracy and general prosperity elsewhere.