You should at least state you're ok with genocide then.
Well, the issue is once you adobt this policy, you have to intervene in EVERY corner of the world. Why was Iraq worse than let us say Rhuanda with over 1 million killed Tutsi? The Hutu killed 75% of the Tutsi population in just 100 days. Imagine if some group killed 75% of all the white people in the US.
With machetes.
When we will we learn, that military actions are NOT the answer to humanitarian issues. This isn't like fighting the Nazi regime from WW2 that openly attacked you or declaring a war on your nation.
Because at this point, I think no one with a sane mind bought the reasons the US governmant gave either for invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan had probably more to do with simple revenge, let us be blunt about it, this had much less to do with 'justice'. The whole nation was crying for 'blood', which is when you think about it kinda cynical as of course when others do it to the US or Europe because our all so precise attacks killed another wedding with 70 people and terrorists targeting us, they are all assholes.
And Iraq was as much about unfinished business as it was about economic and political reasons. Seriously, it reminded me to that movie
Wag the Dog, with Dustin Hoffman, where they fabricated a war with Albania or something, because the President fucked a child and they needed a story to get the medias attention from that ...
The historians of the future will have a lot of work infront of them when all this shit is over and maybe the world came to some kind of peacefull agreement with muslim world, I am curious how fugure generations in 80 or 100 years will look on 2001 or 2017. Historians have this habit that they are extremly harsh, particularly to those that justify their actions with 'just' reasons. Do you think any colonial power of the 18th or 19th century moved into Africa with the intention to enslave the population and killing millions? Most of the people back than thought they did the 'right' thing by going down there, educationg the barbarians and teaching them western values, bringing order, governance, laws etc. while also exploting heavily. But does the good thing colonialism brought to some nations, like a clear jurisdiction and governance actually outweight the bad things it caused? Most people today would say that colonialism was overall a bad thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years historians will say that 'our' intentions in the middle east have been just as bad with millions of dead muslims due to our actions.
We can talk all day about our reasons and what ever if they are good or not or what ever. But at the end of the day you simply have to ask your self one question.
How effective have we been in erradicating both tyranical regimes and terrorism? Can you REALLY and HONESTLY say that all the people that died, including muslims and US/European soldiers justified all of what we achieved to this day? Afghanistan is not in any way or shape safer than with the Taliban really, their government is just as corrupt and if all our soldiers leave tomorrow, the nation will be back into chaos. Or Iraq? Have you seen the kind of government they have today in power? Not only corrupt but almost as opressive like Sadams regime, just in the oposite direction.
