It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War in Iraq- Is "Victory" a Good Thing?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
After pondering the subject many times in my mind, sometimes I wonder if a "victory" in Iraq is what the people really want. The major factor in this equation, IMO, would be the type of government set up in Iraq if our efforts suceed there. With all the problems with corruption and lies in our own government today, whats to prevent similar situations arising in Iraq?

With the many problems within our government, I don't think we are in any position to be the setting an example for the rest of the world.

Now, just for information purposes, I love this country. I think we have some problems, but nothing that can't be fixed eventually. But, when a country that can't even secure it's own borders starts telling me that it wants to police the world, I'd say thats just poor judgement.

At this point, a millitary victory there would make us all happy. Our troops would start coming home, and things would start to look better on their face. But soon, the same corporatism and corruption is bound to affect Iraq's politicians, and in turn, the citizens.

To sum this all up, I would like to get ATS members' thoughts on this dilemma. Should, the US be policing the world before it fixes it's own problems? Do we set a good example for other governments to follow? Does a millitary victory really mean a "win" for Iraq, or are they doomed to see the same corruption in politics and government that American citizens must deal with?




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The US has fixed most, if not all of the serious problems (e.g. disease, clean water etc) that could affect it, this is why it is such a prosperous nation.

So of course the US can police the world as I do not think that domestically it has anything to worry about.

By the way my definition of 'policing' the world means that the US intervenes when it's interests are at stake.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I don't think there were any interests at stake in Iraq when we invaded it. If you beleive the official story, I guess you could say that we did have an interest in Afghanistan, but our "interest" escaped and focus was shifted from Afgahnistan to Iraq.

I think "policing" should shift away from international intervention and more towards providing jobs, healthcare, and homes to Americans.

Personally, I don't care if McDonalds Corp. opens a store in Iraq to expand the global economy and make the rich richer. I'd rather have healthcare here in the states for average joe.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
But my problem is, did anyone aske the Iraquis if they actually wanted democracy. Some people are quite happy living under a dictatorship.

You cant just suddenly invade a country and impose democracy on them after thousands of years of living under dictators and expect everything to be OK. Maybe they just dont want it and prfer to live under the rule of their Ayatollah's?

The US and UK will never ever 'win' a war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
You cant win any war when you cant tell the opposition from the locals.
The US learned that in Vietnam.
The man who one minute, is smiling and talking to you will, the next minute, pick up his Kalashnikov and blow you apart.
How do you distinguish a freedom fighter from a farmer?

They should just leave now and leave these countries to themselves.
The UK, Europe and the US learned and earned democracy after hundreds of years of wars and murders and you cant wave a magic wand and say "OK weve killed the dictator" now start voting.

Those people simply do not understand the whole principle behind democracy. Democracy to a lot of them simply means being able to bung up a satellite dish, own a car, drink Coke and take a holiday.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadesofGrey

The US has fixed most, if not all of the serious problems (e.g. disease, clean water etc) that could affect it, this is why it is such a prosperous nation.

So of course the US can police the world as I do not think that domestically it has anything to worry about.

By the way my definition of 'policing' the world means that the US intervenes when it's interests are at stake.


Sure they fixed most of their problems.
Well what about terrorists? What if they have already secured a place
in YOUR country? But who would consider them a problem?

It's always good to have clean water, clean society free of diseases,
and clean terrorists running up and down your malls causing
chaos, and panic.
If USA keeps 'policing' the world, every country that can not defend itself
(sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan) will be doing what freedom fighters do.
After an attack happens it's America who is the victim and not the other
side. Even tho they get killed, but that is a natural thing if you are
not a Westerner.

My 2 Cents



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I think more of the issue here is not whether or not the Iraqi people wanted democracy, but whether or not they wanted to live in fear of Islamic extremists forever.

My main concern with Iraq is not whether or not the country gets a democracy. It's whether or not the terrorists who control that area are squashed like the bugs they are.

All this bickering and arguing between our own country is only adding fuel to the fire for these people. They are beginning to see that we as a country, don't have what it takes to wait it out and finish the job. They believe they can wait us out, and eventually we will leave. And I promise you, if we just leave, the destruction and death there will me monstrous.

These Islamic extremists are the Nazis of this century. Most people refuse to see them that way, but they are. Our only hope here is to band together, and agree that we should kick things into high gear, and destroy this enemy.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I think more of the issue here is not whether or not the Iraqi people wanted democracy, but whether or not they wanted to live in fear of Islamic extremists forever.

My main concern with Iraq is not whether or not the country gets a democracy. It's whether or not the terrorists who control that area are squashed like the bugs they are.

All this bickering and arguing between our own country is only adding fuel to the fire for these people. They are beginning to see that we as a country, don't have what it takes to wait it out and finish the job. They believe they can wait us out, and eventually we will leave. And I promise you, if we just leave, the destruction and death there will me monstrous.

These Islamic extremists are the Nazis of this century. Most people refuse to see them that way, but they are. Our only hope here is to band together, and agree that we should kick things into high gear, and destroy this enemy.


Maybe sometimes it's easier to back up regroup and come back 5 times
harder. Install spies everywhere to know who the terrorists are.
Because right now it is difficult to see who is evil and who is there
trying to make an honest living.
What I say is back out of Iraq find out who is in power, who runs what
and do something similar to D-Day. That is the only chance US
has to win. Other wise the militia will just recruit more kids,
brainwash them and send them out to war.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
People generally love to be ruled by kings. All of our old children's stories are about kings and queens and lovely princesses and daring princes. A lot of people don't like representative government, because then it's harder to blame your rulers for your troubles. Why do we have another George Bush as our U.S. President? People like royal legacies. They get a sense of comfort and continuity from it, unlike democracy, where you don't know who's going to be "leading" you.

The notion of kingdoms and kings is so deeply rooted in the human collective psyche that it's nearly impossible to dislodge, and it takes a huge amount of violent force to make it happen. World Wars, even.

Is the end result "better?" Hard to say. Sure, America has a huge number of people who are very wealthy, but a lot of that has to do with exploiting people in other countries and burning up a disproportionate amount of resources. If the playing field was level, it might be a different story.

But in answer to the central question, I personally don't think there will ever be a "victory" in Iraq, because I'm not even sure what that would entail. For the U.S. it would be the establishment of a stable democratic government we can do secure business with. For the people, it might be a comfortable return to a nice, Muslim kingdom, ruled by a benevolent and powerful king.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
On the scale of dangers that the average american faces, terrorism is way down the list.

I do not understand the fear that many people on this site have with terrorists.

It's like your have been affected by the governments continual message of fear.

It's time you stopped reacting to your fear and start thinking rationally.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I don't think there were any interests at stake in Iraq when we invaded it.


Don't make me laugh. Of course the US had interests in Iraq otherwise you would not have liberated/invaded it.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
But my problem is, did anyone aske the Iraquis if they actually wanted democracy. Some people are quite happy living under a dictatorship.

You cant just suddenly invade a country and impose democracy on them after thousands of years of living under dictators and expect everything to be OK. Maybe they just dont want it and prfer to live under the rule of their Ayatollah's?...

...The UK, Europe and the US learned and earned democracy after hundreds of years of wars and murders and you cant wave a magic wand and say "OK weve killed the dictator" now start voting.


This is a good point. I don't know how happy they were under dictatorship, but I don't think that Iraq is ready for such a drastic change just yet. I think the citizens of Iraq would have thought it better to make changes on their terms, not ours.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join