Added: 4 years ago
From: paleocrat
Views: 211
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (10)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Jeremiah, I absolutely disagree that there were other, morally superior means of removing saddam hussein from power IN 2003. The west tried negotiations, they tried sanctions, tough sanctions mind you, and saddam remained as entrenched as ever. In an ideal world, we would have invaded in 1991 when we had the manpower and popular support appropriate for an occupation and counter-insurgency. We didn't, and instead we tried sanctions, which saddam used to kill a million of his own people.

  • If US safety was the only goal IMO it would be more cost-efficient to simply reinstall the kingdom. The current king (on exile) would get support and islam is extreamly pro-king oriented, noone could object (and there is no way to question his rights to be a king aswell, noone did in the past!).

    But I think they choose an ambitious goal of making it a western democracy, instead of making it a kingdom and giving it a few centuries to democratize on its own.

  • Every critique about the war is irrelevant where it attempts post-analyze it.

    Had the war gone extremely well and ended with peaceful settlements no one would be saying what they are now.

    Or would you say that we should never have liberated Iraq no matter how well the outcome was? I doubt it. People put their finger in the air and take the easy way out.

    According to you we should never intervene anywhere in the world no matter what -- even if the Vatican were under siege.

  • If you ever happen to walk down the street of a foreign country we liberated you should hang your head in shame. You are not their friend.

    You sound like a liberal if I didn't know you were a Theonomist.

  • Many conservatives and libertarians disagreed with the war PRIOR to the war.

    Yes, many would be saying what they say now. The issue here is with principle, not pragmatism. The non-interventionism of the founding fathers is not new.

    Due to Iraq being an unjust and unconstitutional war, the results aren't at issue. That would be ends justifying the means.

    You don't understand the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism and Just War theory.

  • for once something we agree on

  • haha You'd like most all of my war stuff.

  • idk im not all about peace and love like youd expect. i hate hippies.

  • The world would be a much better place without Robert Mugabe but even if the west were interested in military action against Zimbabwe it would be wrong because it would reopen fresh wounds from the colonial era.

  • War with Iraq was and IS inevitable. Think the tactics of entering should have been better. But I also am not on the mailing list, from those with ALL of the information.

  • I do not believe that it was inevitable. It is only inevitable to those who believe we have a moral responsibility or constitutional right to be the saviors of the universe.

    I am with George Washington and the founding fathers on this one. We should do our best to never get entangled in foreign wars and don't seek out monsters around the world to destroy.

  • Well said! I totally agree.

  • I'm surprised (and glad) that you're against the way we handled Iraq. Most people of your political persuasion are very adamantly pro-Iraq.

  • There are more of us than meet the eye. The war-hawks just happen to be loudmouths. : )

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more