Teach me - Should the USA rethink our stance?

[NicksDad1970]

I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[4 High]

You think that if we dont stand up to countries like Iraq in 1990, all of a sudden they will become super powers and be able to defeat us in standard warfare?

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
You think that if we dont stand up to countries like Iraq in 1990, all of a sudden they will become super powers and be able to defeat us in standard warfare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not "all of a sudden" but yes I do in 10-20 years time.

My understanding about that was this.. As of 1990 Iraq had 20% of the worlds oil. Kuwait had 20% and Saudi Arabia had a large % as well.

So if Sadaam keeps control of Kuwait then he just doubled his income so to speak. Then he goes after Saudi Arabia and gets bigger. The way I was looking at it was like a cancer that gets bigger and bigger.

But as I see all these soldiers die it really bothers me. Of all places the other night I saw a preview for a movie that took place in the late 60's early 70's where a guy gets draftes. He was kind of a free love hippie dude and going off to war changed everything about him (which makes sense).

Anyway it got me to thinking "just because I was raised to thikn X doesn't necessarily mean X is right." I was hoping to explore other peoples thinking and reevaluate.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
So if Sadaam keeps control of Kuwait then he just doubled his income so to speak. Then he goes after Saudi Arabia and gets bigger. The way I was looking at it was like a cancer that gets bigger and bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, I'm no expert here, but even if Saddam 'doubled his income' I don't think it would have been easy for him to go after Saudi Arabia

I agree America keeping Kuwait in existence was a success in regards to not letting Saddam control too much of the world's oil supply

But I wouldn't agree that Iraq was any kind of military threat to the US in 2002, either at that time, or 10/20 years down the line via cancerous growth

[danlux]

Well we certainly don't have a very good success record when it comes to "helping" small countries. Without the world's support, it is nearly impossible to police these countries for any significant amount of time.

We did have a country that was an enormous military threat, and was a direct enemy of us (Soviet Union), and we never fired a shot at them.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking a huge, complicated, open-ended question. I don't think you're going to get any fully satisfying answers. But, one thing is for sure, just because your country's elected government chooses a particular course of action, and that course of action is supported by a majority of the population, does not make that particular course of action right.

Regarding the war in the Middle-East, the Left will tell you that the war is about oil. The Right will tell you that the war is about terror, freedom and democracy. They are both right and they are both FOS.

Very simply, if there was no oil in the Middle-East, than it would simply be another Africa. Just like we are not in Africa, we would not be in the Middle-East.

For a president who had no foreign policy and few issues to focus on, 9/11 provided a Mount Rushmore moment (historically, the greatness of a president is determined by the events that occur during their presidency). For his foreign policy wonks (Cheney, Wolfowitz et al) 9/11 was the golden opportunity to advance a preexisting agenda that had been offered to, and refused by, the two preceding presidents.

Essentially the policy was based on the post WWII success of Germany and Japan. Democratize a Middle-Eastern country and, like moths to a flame, all the other countries will be drawn to the shining beacon of light and hope that would be their newly democratic, neighbor.

This concept is eerily reminiscent of LBJ's culturally flawed thought process regarding the North Vietnamese. Which basically centered around LBJ thinking he could just " set right down with old HO and work out a deal to solve this little old dispute among neighbors".

The thought process behind Middle-Eastern policy is, at minimum, more culturally flawed, and IMO, not very likely to work in any short-term (<8-years) time-frame. Further, the commitment required of a unilaterally acting US exceeds the available resources of men, material and money. Finally, the US public does not possess the will to fight a long-term foreign war of democratization.

Few people know that during WWII the US was precipitously close to financial collapse and that there was a strong under-current of desire to prematurely end the war.

With all of that said, we as a country and as a world, need access to oil that is stable, economical and reliable. Until there is an alternative source, we can not afford, on any level, to be forced into a potentially, devastating oil crisis.

On a final note, any US citizen who thinks that they were lied to or duped into supporting the war is either a liar or ignorant.

Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[tsearcher]

I think the main problem with preemptive wars like Viet Nam and Iraq II is that we can't tell the future. So maybe our goals will be met and maybe they won't.

Whereas WWII and a lesser extent Iraq I, our country wasn't playing guessing games with the future. In WWII, Germany and Japan both declared war on the U.S. and our only choices were to surrender or fight back. The nation's children were dying to defend the people back home.

Iraq I is a better example of OP's question. In that war the U.S wasn't defending itself but rather helping another country. But in our modern age, land grabs are no longer acceptable. As far as I know, Kuwait was an internationally recognized country with clearly defined boundaries. So when the U.S along with a genuine world coalition forced Iraq out of Kuwait there were clear cut reasons for doing so. There was also an immediate reason for doing so.

Now Iraq II wasn't clear cut at all. As was already mentioned, it was pretty obvious before the war that WMD was not the issue. Even if it was, lots of countries have WMD, why pick on Iraq?

Wanting to change the Middle East to a region of freedom and democracy is a noble plan. But who knows how to do it? Maybe force will work, it appeared to work in Germany and Japan. But no one really knows. Why risk all those lives? Why spend all that money? Why ruin our reputation in the rest of the world?

OP I don't really know the answers. But regardless of your political bent you should always question the actions of our government. Especially when it comes to war. Remember the government works for us, the people. It is our responsibility to question the governments actions and do what we can to put it in the right. That's what makes our country great.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Saddam actually believed that the USA would allow him to take Iraq. Iraq was bankrupt and had legit claims to that land, and they felt they were righting the war with Iran for Kuwait also.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam actually believed that the USA would allow him to take Kuwait. Iraq was bankrupt and had legit claims to that land, and they felt they were righting the war with Iran for Kuwait also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there were some foreign policy screw ups before that war. Which goes to show the problem of pickings sides and trying to predict the future. Our country supported and aided Iraq because they were enemies of Iran. Same as we supported what became the Taliban and Alcaeda because they were fighting the Soviets. There are many more examples of this through out our history.

Which all goes to show that we really need to rethink our foreign policy. I believe there are too many cases of our country trying to manipulate events without really knowing the cause and effect.

[Tien]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question should be: Why are there so many people that hate us?

The US isn't quite fighting other people's battles as much as it is fighting battles that the US government themselves help started years before it happened.

The US was the country that armed Saddam with many of his weapons years before the Iraq war started.