Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Kelinfort]

Which so why self determination is way better than outside invasion.

But there was no self-determination under Saddam.

Or Mubarack.

Until 2010.

[Murkwood]

But there was no self-determination under Saddam.

Or Mubarack.

Until 2010.

Saddam had a much harder lock on his people than Mubarak.

[Kelinfort]

Or Mubarack.

Until 2010.

Saddam had a much harder lock on his people than Mubarak.

Like Assad.

You have to let the people rise up themselves. Then you can help them.

[Murkwood]

Saddam had a much harder lock on his people than Mubarak.

Like Assad.

You have to let the people rise up themselves. Then you can help them.

The situation in Syria, what with it's extreme sectarian clashes and more open culture than Iraq, is much different.

[Kelinfort]

Like Assad.

You have to let the people rise up themselves. Then you can help them.

The situation in Syria, what with it's extreme sectarian clashes and more open culture than Iraq, is much different.

Obviously, we'll never know exactly what Iraq would look like under the Arab Spring, but my point still stands: People have to determine their own destiny and when the time comes, then, we can help them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That doesn't make it better. You just traded one asshole for a bunch of them.

Exactly my point, thank you.

Always to help

[Murkwood]

The situation in Syria, what with it's extreme sectarian clashes and more open culture than Iraq, is much different.

Obviously, we'll never know exactly what Iraq would look like under the Arab Spring, but my point still stands: People have to determine their own destiny and when the time comes, then, we can help them.

But if people can't, we should help them gain the right.

[Kelinfort]

Obviously, we'll never know exactly what Iraq would look like under the Arab Spring, but my point still stands: People have to determine their own destiny and when the time comes, then, we can help them.

But if people can't, we should help them gain the right.

Saddam would've died eventually. His leadership would've weakened severely, if not already inspiring popular rebellion. It is possible an Arab Spring uprising would've occurred even with Saddam in power.

But we cannot misjudge the situation as we did. It lead to far more causalities and a worse outcome than self determination.

[Murkwood]

But if people can't, we should help them gain the right.

It lead to far more causalities

Proof?

[The Republic of Merrimont]

Best title ever.

[Murkwood]

Best title ever.

I try.

[Kelinfort]

It lead to far more causalities

Proof?

Not a good outcome.

And of course, this was before ISIL.

[Murkwood]

Proof?

Not a good outcome.

And of course, this was before ISIL.

Coalition forces were blamed for only 35 percent of the killings.

And ISIS has nothing to do with US involvement.

[Kelinfort]

Not a good outcome.

And of course, this was before ISIL.

Coalition forces were blamed for only 35 percent of the killings.

And ISIS has nothing to do with US involvement.

Would those deaths occurred without the sectarian nature of the Iraqi insurgency?

No.

ISIS has filled the power vacuum because of the coalition. It is possible had Saddam fallen in the Arab Spring, ISIS would still exist. But probably nowhere near as powerful.

[Murkwood]

Coalition forces were blamed for only 35 percent of the killings.

And ISIS has nothing to do with US involvement.

Would those deaths occurred without the sectarian nature of the Iraqi insurgency?

No.

ISIS has filled the power vacuum because of the coalition. It is possible had Saddam fallen in the Arab Spring, ISIS would still exist. But probably nowhere near as powerful.

If Saddam stayed in power, odds are we'd have an equally radical Shi'a group.

[Kelinfort]

Would those deaths occurred without the sectarian nature of the Iraqi insurgency?

No.

ISIS has filled the power vacuum because of the coalition. It is possible had Saddam fallen in the Arab Spring, ISIS would still exist. But probably nowhere near as powerful.

If Saddam stayed in power, odds are we'd have an equally radical Shi'a group.

Anti-American? Probably not as much as currently. Saddam would combat the threat much as Assad has. We'd have no reason to intervene.

Again, the people decide their destiny.

[Murkwood]

If Saddam stayed in power, odds are we'd have an equally radical Shi'a group.

Anti-American? Probably not as much as currently. Saddam would combat the threat much as Assad has. We'd have no reason to intervene.

Again, the people decide their destiny.

You keep saying that, but that's meaningless when the people have no power.

[Geilinor]

Saddam had a much harder lock on his people than Mubarak.

Like Assad.

You have to let the people rise up themselves. Then you can help them.

We can't help the people of Syria now, ISIS is gaining ground against moderate rebels.

[Kelinfort]

Anti-American? Probably not as much as currently. Saddam would combat the threat much as Assad has. We'd have no reason to intervene.

Again, the people decide their destiny.

You keep saying that, but that's meaningless when the people have no power.

It's impossible for a foreign power who does not recognise the historical divisions of the area to invade and give the people what they supposedly want. Saddam would've fallen eventually, the people would've determined their own destiny. Less or about the same die and no Americans die.

[Infected Mushroom]

i don't like it.

America should not build empire; America should not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries.

Neoconservatism bad.

[Murkwood]

i don't like it.

America should not build empire; America should not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries.

Neoconservatism bad.

So we should have stayed out of Korea.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

i don't like it.

America should not build empire; America should not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries.

Neoconservatism bad.

I think we should only intervene when we know our goals both for the short terms and long term. Intervening in other countries is sometimes necessary, but only if we can achieve the goals we set in a concrete manner and we can predict what happens in the end and how are we going to achieve with ending these interventions in the way we plan.

These last wars and interventions we have started we have not known how to end them, and this is why there's a crisis in the Middle East; because we never took the time to figure out what we wanted for the region, we never had a clear goal and picture for the region in mind; but we knew what we wanted to do: go to war.

[Zottistan]

I usually call myself a neoconservative because if I call myself an imperialist people will think I'm retarded. And because neoconservative goals are much more likely to be achieved than imperialist ones.

I do believe that if you have moral values, you will strive to uphold them and stop their violation. Otherwise you hardly really value it. I also believe that aggression for aggression's sake is a very bad idea, but that aggression is always a valid option.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I usually call myself a neoconservative because if I call myself an imperialist people will think I'm retarded. And because neoconservative goals are much more likely to be achieved than imperialist ones.

I do believe that if you have moral values, you will strive to uphold them and stop their violation. Otherwise you hardly really value it. I also believe that aggression for aggression's sake is a very bad idea, but that aggression is always a valid option.

You can try to stop their violation; but at times you can't change a country's morality without killing everyone in the country itself. Which is why we need to be able to determine what's in our best interests as a country.

[Infected Mushroom]

i don't like it.

America should not build empire; America should not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries.

Neoconservatism bad.

So we should have stayed out of Korea.

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

same for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc