That is not true. The vast majority of the population was very happy to get of Saddam.
So, why is it they're now blowing you up so happily? The USA is blatantly doing SOMETHING wrong.
Also, why didn't THEY do it before you did? They've had ample time. It isn't THAT hard to kill someone, especially in a nation where everyone seems to have access to a Kalashnikov or two.
The are unhappy about what is happening now.
Really, what's the difference? This is the 'gotten-rid-of-saddam' Iraq. It is this present-day Iraq that people are pissed about.
Gee, before the USA conquered Iraq, there weren't all that many American troops got killed in Iraq. ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!
And how the hell are we trying to turn Iraqis into Americans?
Going into a country to depose its government and install one that favours you more is working towards that end. Giving them the US culture's take on 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' without having any reason to believe they even WANTED it. They might, for all you know, want a popular King or something, I dunno. While yes you've deposed what you and a number of Iraqis consider a tyrant, why don't you depose your own?
Do you have any idea how many countries have a democratic government? Its not just the US.
Want me to give you a little history lesson as to why that is? Once upon a time, in France, there was a King. He wasn't a very good king. The people were starving, they were unhappy, shit generally wasn't going well. So they overthrew him and chopped his head off. They chopped his bird's head off too because she was a bit of a skag and was prolly a bit ugly. You know what the French are like - any excuse for a bit of a scrap.
Anyway, after that, they thought 'Hmm, what should we do now?' Then someone had this great idea, 'Hey, let's not have monarchs, let's vote for our leaders! Let's call him a president!'
And everyone rejoiced, for that was a great idea.
Meanwhile, in other countries in Europe, the common people looked at France and thought, 'Hey, shit yknow, look at these guys. They don't have a king anymore!"
*GASPS THROUGHOUT THE AUDIENCE*
"No king? Who rules them, then?" spoke one random dude, to which the speaker replied, "They vote for a dude who runs their country."
"Jumping jellybeans!" the other guy said, "that's a great idea! Let's do that too!"
And so, the way to become a republic spread throughout the world, by word of mouth and by trade and by a whole host of other stuff.
I don't recall one instance where democracy was installed to a nation by another nation coming in and forcing it upon them. I've known instances where they've TRIED, and it has mostly been American perpetrators, however it's hypocritical to force your own perverse ideal of 'Freedom' upon people.
If Iraq was really being turned into the US, there would be a Starbucks on every corner, right next to the Walgreens and McDonald's that are on every corner. There would be a Walmart every few miles, and everyone would own at least one car. I think you need to open your eyes a little more and actually look at what's happening. All the US did in Iraq was get rid of Saddam and try to set up a democratic government. No one is forcing their culture on anyone.
Yes, you are. You're giving Iraqis the American warped ideal of 'Freedom'. Freedom isn't free when your variant is forced upon you. What's free about not even being given a choice about how to go about it, how to attain it? And yes, you are installing a government of your own preference. As I say, what happens if some guy comes along with the popular support of the people, says "Fuck off, Yankees" and then proceeds to proclaim himself King?
No, the US'd much rather have a puppet like they tried to do in Vietnam. Again, forcing the American will upon the world. The colonists did it a few hundred years ago, and it's a trend that you, as a nation, have not really got out of the habit of.
Now, that's not to say that England hasn't done its fair share of that, and I'm not defending them. But that doesn't give the US the right to do it either. And at the moment the US IS by far the biggest perpetrator.
As for letting people deal with their own internal problems: Its that exact line of thinking that is keeping anyone from doing anything in Africa.
Well then, why can't you do it elsewhere in the world?
To be fair, giving Africa the means to irrigate isn't the same as giving it a system of government you think is right, nor is it the same as interfering with their culture.
Do you really think that the child soldiers and civil wars on that continent do not need intervention of some kind? Or is it really just not our problem since it is not our kids being kidnapped and turned into soldiers?
Well, not really. UN laws don't apply to nations that aren't actually signatories of the UN charter. One way or another, Africa's problems will sort themselves out. Africa has always been that way. When they got hold of guns and stuff, things just got more lethal than if they'd just had spears. Problems that are attributable to the west, the west is liable for. The west isn't really liable for tribal warfare in Africa that has gone on since before the Western nations even existed. It's only because they're using guns not spears that anyone in the west even gives a shit.
What if the US and UK had told France that Hitler was continental Europe's problem and not theirs?
The UK was already involved by that point. The US needn't have been if they hadn't wanted to be. The difference? Hypothetically speaking, the war woulda dragged out longer until the Soviets destroyed the Wehrmacht. Much of Europe would've been part of the Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War. And Japan would probably have lost the war a bit earlier.
Alternately, Germany might've won and the cold war would've been between Germany and USA instead of Soviet Union and USA.
The world as a whole would not have ended up a great amount different, except that I might be speaking a different language right now. Just as the world would not be any different if you had not been to Iraq, beyond that we would not be having this conversation, and I would not be sick of seeing the word 'Iraq' in the news.
What if the rest of Greece had told Athens that Persia was their problem?
Then our history books would be slightly different. Just as they would be slightly different if Germany had won, or if the Soviets had lost. The history books would be different. That would be the only significant consequence.
There are countless examples of why we should not just sit on our asses and watch as other countries try to hack it on their own.
No, those are examples of when nations DIDN'T. You cannot say 'shouldn't have', purely because you'll never know what happened on the flipside.
Well, here is my "tainted" view of it. The Middle East used to be one of the most advanced places in the world, culturally and technologically. That's where civilization started and a lot of things like mathematical formulas and such came from the Middle East IIRC.
That was all before these theocracies took over, and now the Middle East is considered largely part of the third world. So I can't really see how the current situation in the Middle East is doing anything but holding the people back and oppressing their culture.
But when did that become the USA's problem?
Paradox, if we packed up and left, the sectarian violence would turn into a rebuttel slaughter. Than we'd be blamed for allowing a genocide to happen.
But eventually, the violence would end and things would quieten down. Give these people the credit enough to think for themselves and not spoonfeed them. Once upon a time, they put Western minds to shame.
As well as giving the opportunity for free zones where terrorist training camps would blossom.
Ah, so you must restrict the freedom you purportedly give them. Interesting.
In all fairness, Hostile, how hard do you think it would be to set up a terrorist cell in the USA? It would be easy as pissing up a wall, I bet you.
It would be really stupid at this point to pack up and leave. If you think it's bad now, imagine if the iraq government didn't have US troops to back it up.
Then it would either survive on its own (bearing in mind this government IS NOT POPULAR, and so it goes against the entire premise of democracy), or it would collapse and a new one would rise to take its place.
The country would disintegrate into province states
Is that a bad thing? Oh, wait, sorry, it would make the map more complicated.
and Iran would surelly proxy control the shia sections.
Let's create a real scenerio. If sunni and shia begin to duke it out in full scale, Iran would be funding one side while nations like Saudi Arabia would be funding the other.
It would turn into a full blown regional war. Civilian deaths would be enormous considering the fighters rounding up civilians from the other side and shooting them like they are now.
But on a much grander scale.
If we left, the country would end up as three smaller nations that would slaughter each others civilians in retaliation to each others actions.
As opposed to an outside nation comnig along and slaughtering them and otherwise oppressing them.
That's where the UN would be called in. Better that than the US acting alone and doing it their way and to Hell with the UN.
Now that would cause a flood of millions of refugees in every direction. Who would have to pay for that? The rest of the world. Not only that but terrorist training camps would flood new al queda fighters and those can easily move with the mass refugees.
You've said that was already happening many times before. I fail to see as how the outcome would be much different on this score.
It's a really bad scenario that I believe would be the outcome of the US leaving Iraq.
The real problem here is that we went in. There was no way this was going to go down well.
Indeed. Hindsight is always 20:20. But the scenario would be little worse than it is now.
As for Paradox, I really do agree with much of what you say. Yes, we have a lot of problems in our culture, but that is absolutely no good reason not to interfere with other countries afairs.
There is never any good reason to directly meddle in another country's affairs without directly being invited. Germany was an aggressor nation. France and the UK asked for US assistance, and it was given. That is a valid intervention. Iraq wasn't attacking, say, Iran, and Iran didn't ask for help to defend its borders. The US took it upon itself to attack.
Action needed to be taken against slavery.
That was not solved by force, as I recall. At least not in the sense of armed conflict.