excellent points you bring out!
We have a bad track record this half-century, for sure.
the track record for nation building has been very bad we agree.
I think there is a difference between people directly killed by the actions of our soldiers and people killed by the terrorists.
i look at terrorists differently than many in the US. i see someone committing acts in defense of there nation as maybe the word would be self appointed militia. they believe they are defending their way of life.
others i see as revolutionaries that who believe by force they can change their nation. their intent is to overthrow the powers that be. (much as the coalition may have been thinking)
the revolutionary thought process may appear to be terrorist but it is not. it is an assault to say, overthrow Saddam Hussein.
a terrorist would be like the people that flew planes into the World Trade Centers. that was to inflict pain and suffering to a different nation. to create havoc from outside the shores and try and change that nations policy. that is what terrorists do.
when i look at the invasion of Iraq. i see it as nation building from outside. i see it as enforced change of that nation. i see it as an incursion of what Iraq was about. it looks like an effort to have them in the end look like us.
in my definitions above this looks far more like a terrorist act than a friendly gesture. it is the worlds way of knocking down Iraq's World Trade Centers. i do not blame just the US for this invasion.
I am cognizant of the fact that those killed by the terrorists would not have been killed if we didn't invade, but we are not directly responsible for their deaths.
no the US is not directly responsible. but as you look, had the coalition not been present many of the acts of self styled militia and fringe elements would never have occurred. so the blood splashes in all directions. everyone gets dirty.
I also think that the majority of people that our soldiers killed were bad guys and not innocent people, although I am sure a lot of innocent life was taken by bombing, mistaken identity, poor judgment, and counterinsurgency.
this is a tough point. i really believe that the coalition forces tried their hardest to avoid the death of innocents. the problem is that a great deal of collateral damage does happen. in a guerrilla tactic's siege it is often hard to know the true enemy. it could be anyone. the Iraqi defenders would as i stated put innocents in the way. (example: a tactic used against Israel was for a radar station to be set in a hospital. how does Israel take out that instillation without harming innocents.)
the question reverts back to should the coalition forces be in Iraq in the first place?
Iraq had a power structure in place that extended past the Army and included the police and intelligence services and local government. This power structure was abusive and murderous to its people. It takes blood to remove the structure and form a new one. Is it worth it? I think so.
Iraq was over run by thugs and bad management. i do not deny that. i realized the plight of the people that live there. i was there between conflicts. the situation was horrible. the infrastructure was a mess. there were food shortages and bad water. i agree that this was a horrible situation.
nothing was ever done by anyone really to help rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf Crisis. this is much the same a Germany after WWI. had these countries been assisted maybe the problems that happened after could have been avoided. as i recall the people of Iraq and the Kurds were asking for help to fix the nation at the time. the coalition walked out and left them to suffer.
It was worth it when we threw off the English power structure, both in 1775 and in 1812. It took blood to save lives.
Revolution to change is far different than outside forces making the change for you. the American Revolution and French Revolution are different cases.
There were good reasons to be in country. I think that there were multiple reasons given to go. I think there was one primary objective. I think there were multiple secondary objectives that hinged on the primary objective.
i really believe and here we may disagree the primary objective is the statement get even with Saddam.
Was Bush killing his people and threatening his neighbors and not in a Democracy but the leader for life with no way to change him? Bring it on!
i did not say he was. that was an example of how right would it be if outside forces came to your land to change your way of life. you would not like it as i see from your response.
Reasons:
- WMD development threat
- Treatment of citizens
- Iraqi cooperation with terrorists
- UN violations
- To transform into a democracy, because it is geopolitically important and it has the capacity for a democracy – high literacy, developed economy, etc
and the primary objective was:
- To transform into a democracy
Secondary objectives (long-term):
- Influence Iran as a neighboring democracy
- Influence Saudi Arabia as a neighboring democracy
- Become a regional leader
your first list could be ascribed to Korea. why have they not been attacked?
much on the list could be set up for other nations as well. why have they not been attacked.Iraq was a choice made for what i believe certain reasons.
the bolded: nation building is wrong. why do these people need to act as you do in your country? they have a different culture.