[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
thinking that the only reason we invaded iraq was to secure it's oil is so blatanly ignorant that it borders on lunacy.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cheesehead said:
To believe that this issue has NOTHING to do with oil IS lunacy.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with both statements here. But then I must also ask... "yeah, and?" The general ANTIsentiment seems to be that if there's anything in it for us then we are BAD! Bad, bad United States of America! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif I just don't get this mentality... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
[ QUOTE ]
cheesehead said:
However, there are many other monsters that the US does not deal with-if we went to Iraq to liberate the citizens then why don't we deal with the atrocities in other countries?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well... we tried this once. Probably more than once but I'll just stick to this one because it is something that directly affected me. Yes, even I am guilty of the "what's in it for me?" syndrome.
Somalia. What was in THAT for us? Nothing that I saw. Certainly no oil or other resource that we are dependant on or slaves to. We went over there to try to put an end to genecide and remove a drug warlord from his oppression of almost an entire nation. What did we get out of that debacle? The people of Somalia didn't want us there. They continued to have their tribal wars and kill each other. They continuously tried (and succeeded) to kill us and the UN provided escort service for this warlord to move freely around the country. In the end, nothing was accomplished and we got nothing out of it except for some dead sons. (there were no daughters that I am aware of that were killed in Somalia) So was it worth it? I'm inclined to think not.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I do believe that we learned from Somalia. If there's nothing in it for us and you people are not going to do anything to help yourselves, then forget it. I'm not saying this is the instance in every nation of the world that is living under the oppression of an "evil" dictator but let's face it... most of these nations are the way they are because the people don't know any better and for whatever reasons (culture, ignorance, customs, etc) they choose to remain the way they are. Even the warring Somali tribes would not change their genocidal ways once we answered their call for help. This is simply the way they live and they are not going to change. It seems somewhat cavalier to say this but bottom line is, that's just the way it is.
Now on to the argument of sending our sons and daughters off to die in a conflict that is none of our business and/or is for purely selfish reasons and/or to line the pockets of the very rich and/or politically motivated.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one individual in the entire United States Armed Forces who is there by force. Each and every one of them, to a person, is there completely voluntarily. Each and every one of them, to a person, should have been fully aware of what could happen to them once they raise their right hand and "do so solemnly swear". If they are not aware, then that is a lick on them and is no one else's fault. Ignorance is not an excuse.
So in saying that the wealthy politicians aren't willing to sacrifice their children is simply a red herring and basically has no merit in this discussion. Those children have the same choices as you or I. That they have chosen not to enlist is their prerogative. If their parents had an influence in their decision, so what? In the end, those children have the right to do as they please.
My husband and I are not politicians. We're not even wealthy by anyone's standards. However, we have discussed with both of our children the very real risks of enlisting in the military. When asked for our opinions, we have discouraged them from enlisting. Why? Because we are both aware that we could lose our children. As parents, that is not something that we are anxious to do. Does that mean that we are hypocrits? Perhaps... or maybe we would just like our children to be fully informed. In the end, the decision is entirely theirs and we, as parents, would fully support them.
So the argument that these politicians aren't willing to sacrifice their own children is really rather moot. These children don't need their parents' permission or approval. And it's just a guess on my part, but I would imagine that there isn't a parent among us who would honestly say, "Sure! I'll encourage my kid to go do something that will get him killed!". It's just not how nature designed parents. We were designed to protect our children and make sure that they outlive us. That the politicians have the money and influence to offer their children alternatives is also moot. In the end, the child still has choices and free will.
[ QUOTE ]
pedalinbob said:
...so why isnt the beloved UN going into all these problem areas and just fixing them right up??? all that power and all those wonderful countries such as russia, germany and of course, france...why dont they just fix the world?
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is a very valid point as well... (although perhaps I would have chosen not to be so confrontational in the way I brought it up... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )
Everyone screams at the US for not being the world's police force but then yells just as loud when the US actually does take a stand and then at the same time are conspicuously quiet when it comes to the rest of the world and the UN. Just where IS the UN when it comes to all of these other nations that have been brought forth as examples of what the US is NOT doing? Talk about hypocritical!
I'm all for applying the same standards across the board. Which means that the same expectations and sacrifices should be made across the board. So where is the outcry for the lack of equality in this instance? If fingers are going to be pointed, they need to be pointed at ALL guilty parties. Otherwise, those fingers are just as hypocritical as they are so sanctimonious to accuse others of being.
