Yes! But there are different ways to support these fledgling democracires. It does not always have to be via military action.
100% agreed. Which again goes to the point that this support of Iraq's new fledgling democracy is by necessity via military action, & not specifically by choice, since again the primary reason we went into Iraq was not to bring democracy to Iraq.
I agree and disagree, Sirs. I think we went into Iraq for a multitude of reasons.
Personally, I still think we went in for 1 primary reason, and 2-3 2ndary ones, largely following the dealing with the Primary one
I think Bush REALLY believed trhere were WMDs there. Iknow many on the Left do not agree, but I think he really did.
Most sane & rational folks would have as well, given the overwhelming intel at the time, and simple logic.
Plus, oil does play a part.
"Plays a part", yea, I'll by that. A primary reason? Not even close. A secondary reason? Again, no, as we haven't done anything to annex the oil fields, (which we easily could, if we were this big evil military machine), or have demanded payment via their oil revenuces, for taking out Saddam and helping to facilitate their new democracy, (which we probably should)
But, we also do have this tendency to go around the world and try ti ppant democracy in parts of the world we think need it. We do it for positive reasons, I suppose, in that since it works so well for us, then it should work wel lfor others, but that is not entirely true. It is a bit naive. Sorry, but I guess I m getting tired to playing the world's arbiter, judge and policeman. I believe in quiet strength.
You're right in the sense that the U.S. does stick its hands in places it ought not. And all too often, other countries look to the U.S. to police their regions. But again where have we been using military intervention
to force democracies onto other countries? Outside of Iraq, where have we overthrown a dictator because of his believed stockpiles of WMD and terrorist connections? You seem to be using Iraq as "just another example" of American meddling. This isn't America judging Iraq as unfit to continue being a dictatorship, and that we will help bring them democracy. This is America pro-actively taking out a potential threat of a dictator handing or selling off some of the WMD, that NEARLY everyone believed he had, to terrorists that he DID have connections with, including AlQeada, with them then being used on American soil.
I've said it before & I'll say it again....it would have been grossly irresponsible for Bush, as CnC, NOT to have done something along these lines, following the events of 911, and given the intel he had at the time. 911 changed the world in which we live. Not only did it wake us up to this growing malignant threat of militant Islam & Islamofascism, it also has required us to take much greater pro-active (vs reactive) steps in dealing with them. It's absolutely no coincidence that there hasn't been another attack here in the U.S. since 911. I bet you asked 4 out of 5 folks following 911, they'd tell you, as I would have, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when the next attack on U.S. soil would take place.
And I whole heartedly disagree with you when you claim how Iraqis now are worse off now, than when under Saddam. To be able to walk the streets without fear of a car bomb, but be living under a brutal dictator that would just as easily have you and your family's tongue's pulled out if you dared look cross-eyed at his Government, isn't a life, it's captivity. The people are now in charge, and the only reason they have to deal with car bombs, is that the new Government isn't ready to effectively deal with the insurgents and sectarian radicals. Will they ever? I'm an optimist, so yea, I do believe that. I need to believe that, since that's now what we're fighting for, now that the Primary reason for us going into Iraq has been dealt with
