@Scott:
You get me wrong, I'm not for the war in Iraq, I'm totally against it, but I do realize that answers aren't so simple as you make them.
Why not? Lots of things are actually more simple than people think they are. When the ruling class says, "things are complex", what they are really saying is, "Don't bother your little head about it. We (and our cronies and war profiteers) are the only ones able to solve this situation." Then they never get solved, because it is all a con game.
Sometimes, things actually are simple. In fact, many of the most important things in life are very simple. Such as, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And, "Tyrants must be killed."
if you were in charge you'd pull out and after creating the situation leave it to them to solve?
That might be a concern if we actually had a solution. We are not the solution;
we are the problem. Your position is similar to a man who has just raped a woman, now feeling (perhaps) a little guilty, wanting to brush her off and fix her wounds. All the woman wants is for the bastard to go, but he won't. And even more maddening, he tells her he has to stay to help her out, so he's convinced himself he's being a good guy.
and when it explodes you'd say, oh well? and when Europe and Russia get involved because of the oil, you say it's not our problem, and invoke the Monroe Doctrine, and when the trains stop moving here and the food stops coming and the children stop eating you wonder why.
I see. American children will starve if we stop killing Iraqis. Interesting theory there.
The reality is, the place won't explode. The oil will still flow (whoever has the place will want to sell oil and get money - oil is no good to him sitting in the ground). Please recall, guys like Saddam and Qadaffi kept selling oil to "the great Satan". Even if they refuse selling to us (who can blame them), "oil is fungible". It will be sold to someone. That's all that matters.
so as you seem to understand at least some of the dynamics of the start of WWI you would rather let it happen again than stay in Iraq until it stabilizes.
It will stabilize without us. It won't with us there. Anyway my point was that tying one's country up with other countries in alliances makes no sense, especially for a big, powerful country, because it gains us nothing while increasing the temptation of little allies to do reckless things, knowing we will pull their chestnuts out of the fire if they get in over their head. We don't need Israel for increasing our security. Israel is a nuclear power and with an unbeatable conventional military, so they don't really need us either. We don't need to send them (and Egypt and Jordan
) piles of taxpayer dollars that we no longer have.
Anyway, we are now playing the role of Austria-Hungary, messing in others countries, and likely to expand the war; so your point supports my position, not yours.
how about another plan, first we stay in Iraq, but now we work toward getting the machine going over there instead or raping their resources for American big businesses
OK, fine. Explain how you are going to accomplish that. (Good luck.)
second we stop being the weak, limp wristed, liberal, politically correct people we are being taught to be and become the American people again who does what must be done and doesn't apologize so much
Actually, the prototypical Americans were people who minded their own business, and didn't mess in other's countries. Unfortunately we caught the "European disease" back around 1898 or so, and decided to get our own little empire.
I'm all for doing "what must be done". I'm just a bit doubtful about war profiteers, imperialists, torturers and know-nothings telling me what must be done.
we need to address the fact that there are countries and governments that are working for our i'll
Hard to blame them. "Turn about is fair play." Or do you expect people to always turn the other cheek, and let us walk all over them? Even so, only pussies worry about terrorists. You're more likely to die by drowning in your bathtub. The real terror, that many Americans have already felt, and the only potential source of terror for the rest of Americans, came from or will come from Washington DC. If you want "homeland security", go buy yourself a battle rifle, and a couple thousand rounds of ammo. Any real American should have something like that anyway, in my opinion.
Oh, and by the way,one of the main reasons for the start of WWI was the crumbling of the Ottoman empire and the greedy European nations like Jackals not waiting til it was dead to start carving it up. why do you think the Austrians were even in Sarajevo? sound familiar?
Yes it does. So your point is, if jackals are going to be carving up the place, it ought to be American jackals? Why?
If you think, maybe, "cheaper oil for all those American gas hogs", the problem with that theory is that the war has been much more expensive for us than any conceivable hike in gas prices caused by some other jackal controlling the place.
@urban soul:
The question is how in a democracy (given that the majority of people have good will a priori) the will of the people can be respected and how manipulation of the voting people can be prevented.
Wrong premise. There is no such thing as a "will of the people". There are only individuals, each of them having a different will. And the people who claim to represent "the will of the people" are just liars, because it is impossible for them to ascertain something that does not exist.
The best thing that could happen to America would be for it to break up into several pieces. Then we would stop inflicting ourselves on the rest of the world, and Washington DC would stop inflicting itself on us.
I expect that will happen pretty soon anyway. We've about wrecked our economy with all the imperialism and socialism.
)
