Why is it the US' responsibility to build (not rebuild) Iraq?

Question

Iraq was broken before the US got there so I don't understand when people say "The US can't leave because they're responsible for Iraq's condition," as if our actions are the only thing that has shaped the state of that country. They were a third world country with little industry, education or peace.

Today they're a third world country with little industry, education or peace and are on the virge of what can't even be defined as a civil war. The way I see it, they're no worse off now than they were when the US intervened with Saddam's dictatorship; if anything our intervention at least made possible for them to attempt to form a democracy. We gave them a class in democracy, if half of the students were ignorant, and didn't pay attention due to hatred whose fault is that? So why is it the US' responsibility to supervise and assist in the building of an entire country?

Answer 1

We have a responsibility to help them rebuild infrastructure that was damaged/destroyed by our bombs. And while the pre-war government was less than desirable, at least they had a government to deal with things. Because we ousted the government that was there, we have a responsibility to help them set up a new government and offer some protection until that government is stabilized. And given that much of the national defense force that existed prior to the war was either killed or ran away, we have an obligation to help them establish a defense force to help the new government provide security to the country. That doesn't mean we have to provide these services indefinitely or that we have to do it on our dime (revenue from oil sales is supposed to be supporting reconstruction).

Simply put, after we attack and invade a country, the only morally defensible thing is to help the people of that country rebuild.

Answer 2

Because everyone in the world takes the US for suckers and patsies. The other countries in the world look at the USA government just like some of our people do. The US government has money so take them for all you can get. So they sit on their behinds and let the US government pay for as much as possible.

The problem if we pull out before the government is established is that the children are the ones that will suffer most and pay the highest price.

The children in Iraq depend on us for medicine and vaccines. What will they do when we pull out before their struggling government is able to take care of them?

If the UN figures are valid, then in the three years since we have been there, the vaccines and medicine we have given out have saved the lives of more than 180,000 children. Put a price tag on that. Tell me that is not worth it.

A guy at the hospital here is in the reserves. He's a medic. He's been there twice and is going back a third time. The whole time he's there he's part of a crew of four. They load up their ambulance with supplies to last a week. They live out of the ambulance and sleep under it. They go around the countryside giving vaccines to the children and medical care to anyone who needs it.

I look at the UN web site a lot. Before the war I kept seeing on the UN web site and on the UNICEF web site that 5,000 children were dying every month in Iraq. I would cry because I knew that humanitarian aid money was being provided, but it wasn't getting to the children. Then after the war started I saw on the news that soldiers had found huge stockpiles of cash in the palace walls. When they showed that cash I cried again because I knew that he had stolen that money from the children. All I could see was the medicine and vaccines that money was supposed to buy. For the eleven years since the first gulf war until our soldiers started handing out vaccines and medicine 5,000 children a month were dying. That sorry piece of humanity was responsible for more than 500,000 children dying because of his greed.

That investigation that Congress did said that he also diverted huge amounts of money that was supposed to be for food. He would launder the money through contractors in Europe that were supposed to supply food and medicine. They gave him the cash and he gave them oil futures that they sold for huge profits. What a shame.
..

Answer 3

The "drive-by" media has misled people every bit as much as they think that the Bush administration has.

Iraqi's have participated in voting, something that has never been done under Saddam's Baath regime. The Iraqi stock market is growing by leaps and bounds, which is showing investor confidence in certain commercial aspects that aren't tied in anyway to the new formed government or the so-called "civil war".

Granted there is a long ways to go but what are we going to prove to anybody by abandoning the Iraqi government, and most of all our troops, remember the ones fighting to protect us and for people they don't even know? The media doesn't give everybody the full picture and this plays into the dem's cowardly hands.

Answer 4

You obviously know nothing of the rality of Iraq pre American invasion. Cons: Evil Dictator, Pros: electricity, running water, little infighting, community, the ability to leave ones house

By deciding that OUR country was allowed to enter the politics of THEIR country, we signed up for the long haul. We can't just go halfway. We have to show what money and privelage and resources can provide to those that need it. If we leave that country in a state unimproved from when we entered, we will have added to the already overwhelming problem of poverty and uneven distribution of resources in this world.

I think it innapropriate to imply that men with American perspectives should create the policy for a place traditionally filled with people from much different ancestry. I think that the US and the rest of the coalition that decided to blow the whole thing up under the false pretenses of WMDs (mistakes in intel., lies, pre-conceptions, whatever, but still false pretenses) should finance the resonstruction of Iraq - but that a global organization like the UN should oversee the process. America has no right to claim ownership over that far corner of the world- only responsibility.

We screwed up by putting in power a man born into a machine that hungers for power. Not peace, medical equality, food for all, creation and cultural evolution that we could achieve if we just decided we wanted it, but just dumb old war-inducing power.

It was stupid. It's not how the world was meant to go. There is so much potential here. We can do so much more with what we are given. Iraq is just one very watched example of how we tend towards selfishness, fear, and error.

We are the society of which we are a part. If you dropped me into the middle fo desert I wouldn't be very educated either. Don't take your gifts for granted, a$$hole.

Answer 5

The war should not came in the first place, Iraq is not the only one that was controlled by a dictator ?why don't war started by the US with others like Cuba or North Korea ? the war started with Iraq just because they have oil and money... history is just re-surface from Vietnam situation alike... US left Vietnam and didn't care for whatever happen to that little country after US had the deal free trade with China.... that was a shame.

Answer 6

Well, we definitely made it worse. For example, before we got there, Baghdad had the best hospitals in the nation. Now they can't even get basic supplies? We allowed cash money that was "supposed" to be spent in resupplying Iraq to be recklessly squandered by corporations. We've destroyed towns, killed innocent people.
We had no business there in the first place. Iraq has never threatened the U.S. - we are the terrorists there.

We definitely owe Iraq something, and it's not another missle.

Answer 7

Definitely agree with you. Unfortunately we can not just leave Iraq. It would be like starting an operation to remove cancer and ending it prematurely. In a near future the situation will return to its previous condition and will get out of control again if not taken care of n the present.

Answer 8

helping others is a matter of moral, what difference does it make who ****** it up... in the end every country is gonna tell their own version of what happened...the only reason the US is responsable for the building of iraq is because is because they stuck their nose in other peoples business... i'll put it like this, i used to work in a night club once a guy was hitting his wife, I got involved cuz i was the security guard there, i tryied to talk to the gut, but I ended up wipping the guys *** cuz he was drunk and pissed the cops came and now the problem was why i had beat him up, i told the cops what happens and they told me i did the right thing but since the lady never asked for my help I was ****** up, even the lady i was trying to help was talkin **** at me, so there, let's ignore wether the US had a reason to go to war or not, no one asked for their interference in the other country's matters, now no matter what the US does they the bad guys in the eyes of everyone

Answer 9

It's not just the USA's responsibility...it is also Australia's as we also were participants in the war.
Why...because we have turned it into a complete mess. It was our bombs that destroyed it (not that it was a great place before). The civilians should not suffer for our actions of installing "democracy". What a farce, and so sad, what we wound up doing to that place.

Answer 10

As part of the strategy plotted by the francmasons, the muslim world must fall in this third world war in order for the Illuminati to crown their dream of a new world order, in which all nations will be governed by one ruler. As they conquer and destroy, they will rebuild and suposedly bring in new dogmas for the common people to live by. And no, I'm not crazy. This is written.