Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Geilinor]

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.

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?

[Murkwood]

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.

"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

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?

The answer to that question is a resounding no.

[Empire of Narnia]

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 south has more arable land so it is better suited for agriculture. That of course doesn't mean the south wouldn't be developed, it would. The good thing is though North Korea wouldn't have any of the issues with food supply is has now. With both a strong agricultural region and a strong industrial region the country would be a lot better off.

[Murkwood]

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.

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

[Kelinfort]

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.

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

[Murkwood]

"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

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

That was one of the main reasons, yes.

[Britanno]

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.

[Empire of Narnia]

"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

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

Iraq is in way worse shape now that the US attacked it. Now it's a war zone. Saddam kept things stable and made people proud to be Iraqi. Now the country is a failed state.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

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.

I was specifically referring to the Iraq war, which you are so fond of. Of course, some wars do cause the majority of people to be better off, but Iraq was not one of those wars.

[Murkwood]

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.

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

[Kelinfort]

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

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]

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?

One, not all of the reasons.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

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

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

I don't even have words for the sheer incorrectness of that post.

[Farnhamia]

"Not even tyranny".

That's just dishonest.

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

Kind of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

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]

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

What? No we didn't make it better.

[Murkwood]

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

What? No we didn't make it better.

Those oppressed under Saddam beg to differ.

[Farnhamia]

What? No we didn't make it better.

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]

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.

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

[Kelinfort]

What? No we didn't make it better.

Those oppressed under Saddam beg to differ.

The 500,000 who died during the occupation, insurgency, and the new government beg to differ as well.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

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

[Farnhamia]

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.

Exactly my point, thank you.

[Murkwood]

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.

Nearly everyone in the MidEast is sectarian.

[Kelinfort]

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

Nearly everyone in the MidEast is sectarian.

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

[Murkwood]

Nearly everyone in the MidEast is sectarian.

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

But there was no self-determination under Saddam.