Does anyone else feel ashamed about what we did in Iraq?

[Khun Paul]

I have read all of the above with interest, including, 'I have served in active service not many have ' Well I for one did as did many many foreigners who are on this forum, maybe not major foul-ups like the Vietnamese war or the malaysian Insurrection, but others some too small to mention.
No-one here is under any illusion that in reality DS was a means to an end, but they never got to the end. Hence yet another fracas which is stating to wind down.

Some seem to think this is about dictatorships, well in part it is and yes the comment that it is up to the people to sort it out is also right, but if and I mean if the situation is so dire ( take N Korea and Burma) to quote examples then the people are so downtrodden then it is impossible for them to react in a positive way.

There are occasions when humankind must and does come to the rescue of its kind by fair means or foul, oh sure history will write the books and people will be judged on their actions or inaction in the future.

We learn from History to make a better future, but as with all things the present is being rewritten so that lessons learnt need to be revisited to allow for the thought processes of today.

Fighting a war can never be justified no matter how you wrap it up, but in some cases the end justifies the means, does not mean it was right only justified.
We we all be judged by our actions never our thoughts, as one gets older it is said that you get wiser, for many that is true, for some including some who post here that unfortunately is not true. This subject should be discussed not with emotion but with cold calculated discussion, it is often emotions that cause the problem in the first place.

[rick]

One interesting comparison - why was it so evil that when Iraq invaded Kuwait that it required an immediate UN sanctioned expulsion, which led to the subsequent action, but that when Israel invaded THREE countries, that was OK?

[trubrit]

One interesting comparison - why was it so evil that when Iraq invaded Kuwait that it required an immediate UN sanctioned expulsion, which led to the subsequent action, but that when Israel invaded THREE countries, that was OK?

Two words . Oil and Money . :-"

[rick]

Trubrit, better to let people work it out for themselves, give them the answer and they will soon forget. Same for democracy. You cannot paint it on, it just peels off. like in iraq.

[Farang1]

But, do you believe it is fate or coincidence that the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 or perhaps becuase we chose to meet them on their own turf?

I'll differ with you on that, Charlieb. You're forgetting the army major that killed the soldiers at Ft Hood.

The fail bomb attempt of the "underwear bomber" on the plane to Chicago.
The failed bomb attempt of Times Square.
They failed, not because they were caught but, because the bombs failed to detonate. These are attacks on American soil and they are going to keep trying.

[nkstan]

But, do you believe it is fate or coincidence that the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 or perhaps becuase we chose to meet them on their own turf?

I'll differ with you on that, Charlieb. You're forgetting the army major that killed the soldiers at Ft Hood.

The fail bomb attempt of the "underwear bomber" on the plane to Chicago.
The failed bomb attempt of Times Square.
They failed, not because they were caught but, because the bombs failed to detonate. These are attacks on American soil and they are going to keep trying.

If we didn't pursue them on foreign soil,have renditions,Quantanamo,I would imagine that more 9/11 size attacks would have been ongoing!I would guess that if Obummer had been President at the time of 9/11,we would have been inviting more terrorists to immigrate,probably given them citizen rights to Healthcare,welfare and amnesty!

[Aardvark]

I thought they were doing that anyway

[Khun Paul]

I really think with the age of the Suicide bomber,car bombs,and other tactics now spawned by recent and past conflicts, it is now so easy for anyone with a problem can resort to violence on a scale hitherto unknown or possibly not even thought of in some areas.

Terrorism has moved on from the the man with a gun.to certainly more sophisticated and dangerous ways of causing mayhem , unfortunately taking the battle to them is no longer a real option, containment and dealing with it wherever it pops up is now seems to be the only way to deal with it. Intelligence gathering and nations talking to nations I see as being the only way to combat this insidious threat .

But we must never for get that one person's terrorist is another person's hero, one bandit is some else's freedom fighter. Now't simple these days. Gone are the us and them, now it is who and where and why, as a myriad of reasons have been used in the past 40 odd years.

I say forty years as I was 20 yrs old when the Irish problem raised its head and that is still going on if anyone is interested, in fact it has been going on for a couple of hundred years if my memory serves me correctly.

So dealing with a country is nothing really unless you exterminate its entire population and start again, it will be an ongoing problem for years.

[DesertStorm]

I wish that my 'net connection was as good as some of the comments on here!

Here's what I'm looking at, at present.

Pre-WWII, democracy/capitalism simply wasn't working. This was clearly demonstrated by the Great Depression and the crumbling European empires. The alternative was unthinkable. Communism.

Along came the fascists, Nazis and Japanese imperialists, and rapidly developed their own economies and created what was at the time, the most powerful military force in the world.

Interestingly enough, the economist John Maynard Keynes warned both the US and Brit goverments after WWI that revenge wouldn't return with a limp and it most certainly didn't.

Yahoo! though, because they lost. But 'the West' copied their model:

- always look good at home
- always have loads of symbolism and rhetoric for your minions
- always have an enemy but be seen to be helping rather than hindering

It's a spooky coincidence that the US, Japan and Germany so quickly became the world's leading economies. Milton Freidman's dreadful economic theories actually work. For a time.

As more and more of the world's money is controlled by fewer and fewer people, we're actually now looking at a horrible form of global socialism becoming a very real reality. And it'll be a new form of communism all dressed-up as good, that will be impossible to get rid of.

They'll have us working for a bowl of rice a day in time at all.

Thoughts, folks?

[jackspratt]

Yep.

Nonsense!

Are you heading this debate towards the "New World Order"?

[nkstan]

IMO,there will never be peace in the ,as there never was!Why,man is selfish,in competition with all others and wants to be ''top dog''.All the ''do gooders'' have there own selfish agenda also!

It is a matter of which group of people have the most power that controls the events and happening during the time the others are scheming how to usurp that power!Then the baton of power is seized by the next group and the cycle goes on!

I think the mistake each group in power actually makes,is their denial that they are so selfish,combined with their desire to act some ''do gooder'' roles with the hope of influencing the usurpers that they are better off supporting rather than competing.It only weakens their power and shortens their reign.

To maintain power,especially when they had overwheming military might,they needed to be more ruthless!

Who will be next?China,India or the Amalgamated Islamic Empire?

[rick]

Not particularly worried about which country is 'on top'. The main problem is that over the last 30 years there has been an erosion of social mobility; particularly in UK and probably USA as well.

Back in the 60's and the 70's there was generally good employment opportunities and it was easy to get a reasonably good education, everyone had reason to be optimistic about the future. Then efficiency, outsourcing and cutting investment costs became the order of the day. Yes, there was vast swathes of 'uneconomic' industry but it provided the idling motor on which the rest of the economy could feed. In the names of efficiency, vast swathes of industry was shut down, causing unemployment blackspots which have lasted for 30 years, creating 'benefit dependency' which now spans generations. Instead we had get rich quick financial services. In higher education, grants for university study was cut back and aprententiceships slashed (no industry now). We now have a working class with high unemployment and no skills, a young educated middle class saddled with educational debts and no hope of buying a home, and a small monied elite who are getting richer. I suspect the majority of British in the future will be ripe for radicalisation, religious or political. We will not care which country is on top, just who will help us.

[MALC]

your spot on rick.

[MALC]

you have pakistan having major floods. beggin the world to give them aid.and they are still blowing each other up.they are a nucler power why dont they nuke themselves.it would save the world a lot of wasted money if its sent there.

[DermotC]

Great reply Rick!

Exact same in Ireland except refugees from other countries get benefits and social housing alot quicker than Irish People do!

[Texpat]

Multiculturalism and diversity are more important in today's world than national identity, history, legacy... We encourage others to come in and share what we have. Why do we then act surprised when what we had has disappeared?

Liberal guilt is destroying what the west has built. Somehow they think that's ok.

[DermotC]

Texpat, Do you think Liberals are destroying the States? Personally I think the Republicans have gone so far right that they need the democrats to keep them in Check! My humble opinion of course

[Bilko]

While everyone is drifting off topic, then answer me this. If Albania attacked Turkey from behind, would Greece help ?

[Texpat]

Texpat, Do you think Liberals are destroying the States? Personally I think the Republicans have gone so far right that they need the democrats to keep them in Check! My humble opinion of course

Not just the States. The same principle of self-loathing exists across much of Europe, too. This liberal notion of erasing borders, mortgaging your children's and grandchildren's futures by paying everybody for everything today, making concepts like pride and success bad words, pandering and appeasement to anybody with a stick and a frown, dismissing a work ethic as disgusting, arrogant ambition...

It's all rather sickening.

[TJ]

Pre-WWII, democracy/capitalism simply wasn't working. This was clearly demonstrated by the Great Depression and the crumbling European empires. The alternative was unthinkable. Communism.

Interestingly enough, the economist John Maynard Keynes warned both the US and Brit goverments after WWI that revenge wouldn't return with a limp and it most certainly didn't.

It's a spooky coincidence that the US, Japan and Germany so quickly became the world's leading economies. Milton Freidman's dreadful economic theories actually work. For a time.

Where did you go to school? Pre-WWII capitalism did work. The blueprint for a successful economy through capitalism was printed in 1776. It was Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. If governments follow Adam Smith's recomendation of sound money, low taxes, minimal government spending and regulation and free trade there would be peace and plenty. None do as you know.

In the 1780s William Pitt was strongly influenced by Adam Smith's ecnomic theory on taxes. Then it was William Hussikson in the 1820's, Sir Robert Peel in the 1840's, and William E. Gladstone in the 1850s and 1860s that continued to implement Smith's principles of economics and laissez-faire. In the nineteenth century the British governments strove purposefully for the minimum: they abjured any right to direct the national economy. Towards the end of the nineteenth century Britain was the foremost example of a free economy in which government's general economic policy would best be described as noninterference in the private sector. Britain officially went on the gold standard with Lord Liverpool's Act of 1816. Unofficially Britain had been on a gold standard since 1917 proclamation which proscribed the value of a gold guinea at 21 shillings. They had sound money.

The U.S. economy was much the same during the late nineteenth century and we enjoyed great prosperity. Small non-interventionist government and free trade was the key to success.

The introduction of progressive government malintervention and wars started with Teddy Roosevelt and continued with Woodrow Willson and FDR. Disaster. The flawed progressive Keynesian economics become accepted in the thirties. Hoover was a great believer in Keynesian policies and greatly mismanaged the nation's economy, FDR did worse and so capitalism was greatly hampered by state central planning. Britain bankrupt itself and installed a wartime socialist economy during WWI and repeated it with another dose in WWII.

The Great Depression was due to U.S. government malintervention in the economy. FDR's New Deal and other malmanagement extended the depression for years. Finally FDR's death brought some stability to the business environment and the Great Depression came to an end. No, WWII didn't end it.

Japen and Germany recovered quickly by managing their economies to promote trade. Exports accelerated their recovery and got them to the top again. Milton Freidman IS a sound economist and his books are valuable education tools.

Somewhere you got in with the wrong crowd to learn economics and history. IMO it is better to educate yourself in these areas. Read Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Clarence Carson, and F.A. Hayek for economics and some useful and factually correct history.