Political Impact

[bearclaw]

Please take a moment to answer this question if you believe that the United States will achieve it's objective in Iraq. *note: answer regardless of what you may think the real objective is, or the "media stated objective"

If history repeats, then according to Ritter the United States will lose in Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam. With that said, would the current actions by the U.S. be consider "legal" let alone constitutional, and is there ever a meaningful, and sustainable reward for anything that is not done with out a pure and righteous intention, let alone the initial legality of this whole matter ?

 

[iceman1]

Quote from bearclaw:

Please take a moment to answer this question if you believe that the United States will achieve it's objective in Iraq. *note: answer regardless of what you may think the real objective is, or the "media stated objective"

If history repeats, then according to Ritter the United States will lose in Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam. With that said, would the current actions by the U.S. be consider "legal" let alone constitutional, and is there ever a meaningful, and sustainable reward for anything that is not done with out a pure and righteous intention, let alone the initial legality of this whole matter ?

NO!

YEAH! IF you're sadaam hussein you can attack Kuwait without legal or moral authority. So the 'reward' of the USA is that we now move into the same category, and thus can rightly be mentioned in the same sentence as the name of Iraq and hussein's.

Next time another country attacks, the US will be hard-pressed to say one peep about it... and not be the laughing stock of the World not to mention major hypocrites lacking moral authority for such opposition! And who will listen?! It will take force again.

From now on it will all be rationalization as to whether the ends justify the means; and whenever it is another country the US will claim they do not, in the opinion of the US.

Judge, jury and executioner?!

Ice

 

[Andre]

If history repeats, then according to Ritter the United States will lose in Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam. With that said, would the current actions by the U.S. be consider "legal" let alone constitutional, and is there ever a meaningful, and sustainable reward for anything that is not done with out a pure and righteous intention, let alone the initial legality of this whole matter ?

I don't think we're going to have a long protracted war like Viet Nam. And it's already proving to not be so easy as the first Gulf War. I'm not so sure the historical scenarios you suggest will repeat. I bet Saddam will be out by Mid-summer. The trick will be in how we withdraw.

Pure and righteous intention? Did we have cause to involve ourself in Kosovo? I'm not suggesting that we had/have "legal" reason to invade Iraq this time around. I do suggest that the only valid reason for declaring war and involving oneself in the affairs of another state might just be selfish interests.

For example: many people (leftists) wrung their collective hands over how women were treated in Afghanistan (among other things). This was no small issue. But we had no real mandate to enter. So we did nothing. But when the mastermind of a great crime was supposed to be there, we had the requisite reason.

The main humanitarian issue did get better, but we didn't go there for that. That's the bitter irony of motivations for war and use of force. Is there ever a "legal" time to use force? What kind of negotiations can you have with a totalitarian rule?

If we withdraw, if we do not "occupy" Iraq... I think it's quite possible that the US will suffer no negative long term consequences from this invasion. Those are big ifs, however. Iraq will have to want democracy enough to fight for it amongst themselves. I'm not convince anyone in the middle east wants that bad enough... they'd rather settle for tribal security and religious totalitarianism than democratic/free market freedom.

André