Perhaps the U.S. Should Not Have Invaded Muslim Countries

jbg · May 12, 2014

From 2001 until recently I was a strong supporter of GWB's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and to create democracies. The reasoning seemed attractive; most people don't like war and would vote for peace and constructive government. It was hoped that those governments would be less corrupt, less vicious and more open. It has been a sad disappointment.

As pointed out by the quoted posts below, from another thread I didn't want to cause "drift" from its topic, these countries, and many others in Africa and Asia, are artificial constructs that jam warring tribes and religious groups into shotgun marriages. It really cannot end well.

My thinking is evolving on the subject. Perhaps the U.S. should revoke Carter's executive order against overseas assassinations. Then, when some group or country decides, whether directly or indirectly to cause harm to the West, we knock off those responsible. If we can't figure out who it is, we knock off leading clerics and other leaders who seem to have some degree of control.

These countries generally do not have governments the way we understand them. True, they have elected or unelected leaders, who take custody of overseas aid and largesse, and resource moneys. These leaders care little if at all for their people. It's a gravy train for them.

This kind of "leadership" should have consequences. If they permit the territories they control to be used to facilitate murder, there should be consequences, and not just toothless U.N. resolutions.

Experience has shown that we cannot remake these lands. The U.S. tried in the Phillipines from the early 1900's to 1944, after we inherited them from Spain. The French tried in Lebanon. We tried in Afghanistan. We tried in Iraq. Let's try something different and see whether the people advocating "peace" react differently. Do they dislike invasions or do they just dislike the West protecting itself and its liberal system of free government?

Africa is full of artificial states created by colonialism, whereas (like us) the people live in smaller communities, some of them extremely backward and with no very obvious reason to join the human race. Push for a confederation of real groups. The colonialist chickens seldom come HOME to roost!
In most of Africa generally, I agree. ********** European empires divided countries in Africa into artificial state borders in the 1800's with no regard to the cultural groups within, so you have these different groups fighting for control of political power within countries via government systems completely foreign to their cultures prior to colonialism. This, among other things, causes civil war. You force ie: Sunnis and Shias into the same borders, and/or use "divide and conquer" tactics to cause resentment between groups, as the colonial Belgians did between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and you're going to have conflict, whether violent or not.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

Back in the day in Whitehall the Brits drew up borders for Africa that were oriented completely wrongly. They went from east to west, if they had taken a moment to understand what they were doing and the impact on the people, they would have drawn them from north to south. Many of the people are nomadic and they need to travel with the rainy season so their animals can eat. But anyway, they still went in and raped the place whether they be Muslims or anything else.

Moonlight Graham · May 12, 2014

Back in the day in Whitehall the Brits drew up borders for Africa that were oriented completely wrongly. They went from east to west, if they had taken a moment to understand what they were doing and the impact on the people, they would have drawn them from north to south. Many of the people are nomadic and they need to travel with the rainy season so their animals can eat. But anyway, they still went in and raped the place whether they be Muslims or anything else.

No European country should have drawn up any borders regardless of direction. Fortunately for native Africans, the continent was much harder to colonize than ie: North America.

monty16 · May 12, 2014

Jbg, I'm so happy to hear that you no longer support US wars of aggression. The why doesn't matter to me and I couldn't understans what you were trying to say anyway? Something about your realization that the US can't remake foreign lands? Are you now of the opinion that Clinton's 99 Kosovo adventure was wrong too? All the righties hated it at the time because they don't support the other party's wars.

Moonlight Graham · May 12, 2014

jbg, you're 10+ years late to the party.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

The U.S. should invade countries whenever it is in its interest to do so, regardless of the prevailing religion. That is how it became a lone super-power....having the means and will to do so. Canada didn't seem to mind when far more Americans died in the royal world wars the U.S. didn't start .

monty16 · May 12, 2014

US super power? Baloney. It's a defanged super power that only stands up to small countries that don't have the ability to strike back. N.Korea isn't one of them apparently. And Iran isn't either because it's got it's own socalled super powers with nukes.

Thank dog Russia is back and China is on the rise!

Russia and China should invade countries when...... blah, blah, blah,

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Russia and China already have...go study some history. You already live in a fallen empire. Millions suffered for royal jelly, including many Muslims.

Edited May 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

Peter F · May 12, 2014

Perhaps the U.S. should revoke Carter's executive order against overseas assassinations. Then, when some group or country decides, whether directly or indirectly to cause harm to the West, we knock off those responsible. If we can't figure out who it is, we knock off leading clerics and other leaders who seem to have some degree of control.

I am a bit astounded that you think this will somehow work where invasion didn't.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

The U.S. should invade countries whenever it is in its interest to do so, regardless of the prevailing religion. That is how it became a lone super-power....having the means and will to do so. Canada didn't seem to mind when far more Americans died in the royal world wars the U.S. didn't start .

It became a superpower because it spent many years with black slaves doing all the work and white slave owners making all the money.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

It became a superpower because it spent many years with black slaves doing all the work and white slave owners making all the money.

Canada had "black slaves" too...so what happened ? The U.S. became a super-power when yours failed. God save the Queen.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

Go study your history book

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Go study your history book

Always do.....U.S. adventures in Muslim countries can be traced to the broken pieces of your failed empire.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

Canada had "black slaves" too...so what happened ? The U.S. became a super-power when yours failed. God save the Queen.

I wouldn't say ours failed. We are a much happier country according to the latest survey of such things. Maybe because we aren't worried so much about getting shot as we go about our business.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

Always do.....U.S. adventures in Muslim countries can be traced to the broken pieces of your failed empire.

Are you on drugs or what?

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

What did we fail to do in Iraq that made you need to get into an illegal war? I can't wait for the answer to this!

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Are you on drugs or what?

Personal insults are a violation of forum rules.

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

So no answer to the question about Iraq?

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

So no answer to the question about Iraq?

Where do you want to start.....here?

On 11 November 1920 Iraq became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq". The British established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.

...Or here?

The third, and what proved to be the busiest type of mission accomplished by Canadian CF-18’s began on February 14, when the Desert Cats were authorized to commence air-to-ground strike missions. Finally the armourers felt they were contributing! The ordinance delivered was 500 pound “dumb” bombs which were either dropped in a 45 degree dive, or, where the target was obscured, from level flight.

Wait...I forgot...you didn't even know that Canada bombed Iraq in 1991. Sorry !

So is it OK to bomb Muslim countries but not to invade them ?

Edited May 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · May 12, 2014

GWB decided to go into Iraq for, well we're not quite sure what reason. He invited us but Chretien had the good sense to say No, or Non in French. He was aware it was an illegal war and now he's a little hesitant to travel, as is Cheney who was the henchman brains of the operation. I don't see how you can tie Canada to having caused that, at least not without tongue in cheek.

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2014

Try to stay on topic....is it OK for Canada to bomb Muslims like it has (Iraq & Libya) but not invade the country (Afghanistan)? Is the U.S. held to a different standard ?

Edited May 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004