05-31-2010, 12:24 AM
(05-30-2010, 04:53 PM)--Pete Wrote:Yeah, I don't mean preemptive either. I think our wars comes from a few reasons; 1) we have a vested interest (e.g. huge investment) that is threatened, 2) we have an ally who messed up or gets attacked, 3) humanitarian crisis that we cannot sit idly by and watch, or 4) we get attacked. Iraq doesn't fit that mold. Afghanistan, hardly fits the mold, since Saudi Arabia had more to do with financing, while the Taliban just provided safe haven.(05-30-2010, 03:53 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Perhaps, the inhumane part is having to destroy a nation . . . to change the countries leadership . . .I'm sorry, but who says we have to? I can see going to war to defend ourselves (and I don't mean preemptive retaliation). I can, to a lesser extent, see going to war to defend our allies if they've been attacked. But to go to war to give some country a government that its population neither earned nor can support is not only wrong, it is stupid. "Every nation has the government it deserves." -- Joseph de Maistre 1811. Change must come from the inside.
If I had it my way, we'd worry about #4, and secure our borders. #1 has the problem of throwing good money after bad, #2 is what George Washington suggested were the foreign entanglement that we should not do, and #3 is very subjective and if not done by the UN, should not be done.