NationStates

Empire of Narnia wrote:

Murkwood wrote:If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

Except unlike say Iraq, Korea was already divided and seeking our help at the time. The true neocon war, Iraq, was a complete and utter failure in every sense of the word except for getting rid of Saddam, a one time ally of the nation who tossed him out for no legitimate reason, not even tyranny.

Murkwood wrote:

Empire of Narnia wrote:It gives people freedom, well except for all the ones who are dead.

There will always been casualties in war. The real question is: would the majority of people be better off?

Geilinor wrote:

Empire of Narnia wrote:It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

Why should the South have had to remain agricultural to pay for the mistakes of an incompetent government? Doesn't it have the right to develop itself?

The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate wrote:

Murkwood wrote:There will always been casualties in war. The real question is: would the majority of people be better off?

The answer to that question is a resounding no.

Murkwood wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Except unlike say Iraq, Korea was already divided and seeking our help at the time. The true neocon war, Iraq, was a complete and utter failure in every sense of the word except for getting rid of Saddam, a one time ally of the nation who tossed him out for no legitimate reason, not even tyranny.

"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

Did we ever use tyranny as an excuse to free the Iraqis?

Murkwood wrote:That wasn't immoral. We toppled one of the worst dictators in modern history.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

Did we ever use tyranny as an excuse to free the Iraqis?

Murkwood wrote:

The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate wrote:The answer to that question is a resounding no.

Umm...we are talking about in general. So unless you mean all wars are bad, then what you are saying makes no sense.

Britanno wrote:

Murkwood wrote:That wasn't immoral. We toppled one of the worst dictators in modern history.

And in doing so screwed Iraq over for decades to come. Totally moral.

Murkwood wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Did we ever use tyranny as an excuse to free the Iraqis?

That was one of the main reasons, yes.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:That was one of the main reasons, yes.

Then what was the point of the WMD's? Why was that whole fiasco necessary? We didn't invade for that reason under Clinton or other Bush.

We had faulty intel, we knew it wasn't entirely accurate, other nations that were more of a threat had proven WMD capabilities. Other nations have worse tyrants. So why Iraq?

Murkwood wrote:

Britanno wrote:And in doing so screwed Iraq over for decades to come. Totally moral.

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

Did we ever use tyranny as an excuse to free the Iraqis?

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".[3]

Murkwood wrote:

Britanno wrote:And in doing so screwed Iraq over for decades to come. Totally moral.

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

What? No we didn't make it better.

Murkwood wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
What? No we didn't make it better.

Those oppressed under Saddam beg to differ.

Farnhamia wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Those oppressed under Saddam beg to differ.

So would those discriminated against by the Shi'ite government and those having to deal with that government's failure to defend its own borders.

Murkwood wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
What? No we didn't make it better.

Those oppressed under Saddam beg to differ.

Murkwood wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:So would those discriminated against by the Shi'ite government and those having to deal with that government's failure to defend its own borders.

Sectarian violence has nothing to do with US involvement. We traded a tyrannical sectarian for a democratic sectarian. There would be violence regardless.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Sectarian violence has nothing to do with US involvement. We traded a tyrannical sectarian for a democratic sectarian. There would be violence regardless.

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

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Sectarian violence has nothing to do with US involvement. We traded a tyrannical sectarian for a democratic sectarian. There would be violence regardless.

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

Murkwood wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
That doesn't make it better. You just traded one asshole for a bunch of them.

Nearly everyone in the MidEast is sectarian.

Kelinfort wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Nearly everyone in the MidEast is sectarian.

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