[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bube

Is it because they think they can handle it themselves? They probably can, if they want this sort of thing, but the main reason is they want the US out of their business.

And the evidence you have to support this statement is? Actually, the Iraqi government has been nothing but supportive of the US's involvement since Saddam's removal and the election. And honeslty, talk to an Iraq war vet and ask them whether or not the people there appreciate their efforts.

I can't tell if you're being humanitarian here, or just trying to justify the war.

Well, if the argument against the war is the number of civilian deaths, I will argue on the merits of that argument. The reason why we went to war was because it was believed to be in our best interests to remove Saddam Hussein, and just about every nation in the UN agreed that he was a threat at the time. The disagreement was how to handle it, but that i an argument for another time... or decade.

What does "if we can't do everything we should do nothing" mean? I mean, who are "you" (of course, I mean the US - I've been avoiding saying "you" directly, so excuse me) to do something about this? This "superpower" thing is just getting out of hand. It's like the US owns the world.

I'm arguing the point in the context that it was proposed. Like I stated earlier, I don't believe that the US went to Iraq will the primary goal of freeing its people, but I will argue the humanitarian benefits if that is the question that is proposed, and it was.

And no, we don;t own the world, but we do police it in most instances, and we do so at the world's request. Going back to Clinton and before we have always been the major force (in numbers) behind NATO and UN military interventions, but rarely did we command those forces or dictate the actions. In most cases these actions directly were to benefit other nations or provide humanitarian assistance. Read "The Case for Goliath" and they point out how beneficial our superpower status has been for the well being of many nations around thw world, even if you just consider the fact that we police the world's maritime shipping lanes.

In the case of Iraq, the point was to protect our own interests and follow the Bush doctrine that countries that harbor and support terrorists, like Iraq did, are as guilty as the terrorists. Now you an argue the point that iraq may not have been the best choice to do so in the sole terms of terrorist support (Iran has been FAR worse), but it may have been the best target for a cultural campaign to eventually reform the region.

There is the belief that Iraq was chosen because it was the best candidate for the "infection of freedom" theory, in that if a Middle eastern nation was given self-rule, the people of other nations in the region would also demand it. There is some historical evidence to support this, and iraq did have the best infrastructure and most educated populace to make it a great candidate, but if this does work we won't know for probably 20 years. That would be a greater victory through cultural attrition, and not direct or traditional victory. Now you can argue your thoughts on effectiveness in this case, but not the intention of the war.

Once again, I don't believe we went into Iraq to free their people, it was national defense, but I also don't think the humanitarian portion was an aferthought either. Rumsfeld's "Hey, they'll love us!" strategy shows that we thought we would be widely cheered in the region for doing this.

And just think about it, some country, thinking the same thing about the US's policies, came and attacked you, started a full on war, thousands dying all around. Then the world finds out that there's nothing behind it. It all looks to be a lie. What would you think?

Well forst off, there is a difference between being wrong and lying. I will accept the premise that Bush, and the rest of the world for that matter, were wrong. I will not accept the premise that Bush lied to get us into the war, and there is no evidence that he did anything but follow the intelligence available at the time.

Secondly, I reject this sort of relatavist argument. The US is not and never was Iraq, in any shape or form. There is an objective difference between right and wrong. If another country were to attack the US, it would garner FAR harsher international reaction that our intervention with Iraq, becasue the US is the US and Iraq was Iraq. The difference should be obvious.

I don't think this view is selfish. It's what the government is there for. Yes, they also have to protect their country - their country, not another country- but, well, it's not like they've really "protected" anybody (neither their own nor the other)..

No, its not. It might be what YOUR government is there for, but not the US's and it was NEVER intended to do so. That is why the US constitution is such a unique document, as its primary goal is to allow the US citizen the freedom and security to succeed on their own terms by their own will. America is not a "nanny state", to use a cliched term, and I hope it never will be. This makes national security a PRIMARY goal of the US government and not secondary by any means. if you prefer the way your country handles things, then good for you and those who love your country, but it has nothing to do with our nation and I hope it never will.