Aren't we "fighting" in Iraq...?

Question

in an effort to develop nacent democracies in the Arab world and see to the destruction of the tyranny that is Iran? The Iranian people will look east and west and see Afghannis and Iraqis, respectively, living and thriving under locally elected democracies and want this for their families and themselves.

The rub will be the Iranian leadership. Soon, after these democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan have established themselves and constructed their foundations, the Iranian people will want this type of government for themselves. The Iranian leadership will deny them this, and will have to start killing its own to squelch the talk of revolution.

What peeves the Dims is that their guys, Kennedy and Clinton, never could do anything like this, and there is good reason. The Dimocratic model, also known prior to the '60s as the FDR model, called for the total destruction of EVERYTHING that moved. Remember WWII, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? It was this model that lead to the Kennedy/Johnson model where they bungled S. Vietnam.

Clinton refused to address the growing threat of Islamofascism in the '90s and concerned himself more with getting some tail on the side. From his narrow perspective, blowing up a couple of embassies and blowing a hole in the side of a Navy ship were to "be expected," and law enforcement will take care of "those" issues.

Ha! There will be those out there who think that the "Arabs" aren't ready for democracy, as the first answer seems to portend. It's fair to give them a chance. Perhaps YOU would rather see us go Hiroshima on the whole Middle East! Let's give them a chance to do it right and see how we can help them to achieve it.

To the one answer that stated that we will move on to the next problem after we are finished in Iraq, just WHAT would be the NEXT problem? Darfur? =; No way. It is sad that people are dying there, but to fix it would be too much like throwing money at the problem. Which some would argue is what we are doing in Iraq.

Answer 1

I can see this happening, that is why bush said "war on terror" not war on iraq. Once Iraq gets its government together, we will go to the next country.

Answer 2

It's funny in a hack sort of way, but in answer to your question, no. A stable middle east would have been a better oil procurement policy because it would keep risk to the supply lines down, keep speculation down, and not cost the US such a dramatic amount of money, time, and political clout. US efforts in Iraq have actually served to destabilize the Middle East in general, at least for the time being, causing the rises in oil prices that we've been seeing for several years. That's because the political situation is uncertain, the supply lines might be endangered at any time, and speculation, as a result, went through the roof. The "war for oil" prospect doesn't make much economic sense, ultimately; the amount of money put into the war effort and the side effects it created don't square with a resource war theory. There is an additional explanation that US leaders were using the war in a conspiratorial way, to generate profits for their ex-business partners in the oil industry. That explanation requires one to go to fairly extreme allegations on spurious evidence. While it squares well with a traditionally Radical point of view, there's not really enough evidence to support that conclusion very solidly. It's very likely that there were reasons, or a reason, other than oil profits that prompted the US to go to war with Iraq.

Answer 3

The democratically elected Iraq Parliament has voted that the US should leave their country. But our troops are still there. Mr. Bush won't have them leave until Iraq accepts an oil revenue sharing agreement that gives their country's oil to the big 5 oil companies. Its about oil, it always has been. Democracy? Would they have cheated in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 if Democracy mattered to them? They are in it for the oil. Anything else is a lie.

Answer 4

It's naive to think that Democracy alone is the answer. They'll just elect religious zealots instead of letting them seize power, not much different.

Answer 5

hate to say but the wars are going all over.