It is extreme hubris to assume murderers will become nice people by talking to them and cajoling them after they have already come to our places of work and murdered our families.
Perhaps we should disarm our police forces? or at least tell them never to use their guns if they are faced with a violent situation.
Your "argument" makes no sense in any context in which we are faced with irredeemable murderers and enemies. LOL "hubris" you say? No, it wasn't even hubris when the colonial Americans took on King George III.
Colonial Americans taking on King George III is exactly what I'm talking about. The Brits were stretched too thin and their colonies revolted, in all parts of the world.
They couldn't afford beating back every single rebellion as their colonies chipped away at British power worldwide.
I am not talking about any emotional appeal whatsoever. I am not saying "let's get along" or "let's be nice".
First off, remember a former evil empire called the Soviet Union? Didn't we contain them and successfully avert war? Even though many of their leaders such as Stalin etc. were as murderous as Saddam?
Saddam is a murderous pig, but not a total idiot. He knows that if he strikes, we strike back. But, ok, suppose we topple Iraq. What comes after that?
I am talking about cold, hard, rational, logical MONEY. You are suggesting that we indefinitely occupy Iraq, Iran, and so on. We may even be doing it for the right reasons, the wrong reasons, whatever. But that doesn't matter.
The "hubris" I'm talking about is thinking that the US treasury can provide the money for sort of thing indefinitely.
We need to protect our country and way of life by guarding our financial security! Time and time again history shows that powerful countries rapidly become weak ones by attempting to hold on to every single (*#(*& patch of earth.
Stan Kubrick
I too an talking cold hard money. That is precisely why we should establish colonial rule, not a simple military "country-building" operation. These countries have a vast amount of wealth. Their people must be taxed, and their natural resources must be used to repay the war costs, to pay for continuing administration costs and to reap a profit for whichever US corporations are required to provide services.
In other words there is more than enough wealth for the US to actually turn a financial net profit AND rebuild a functioning economy and civilized society for the native peoples.
This model worked successfully for the Romans and it worked for the British. Both the British and Romans reaped tremendous net rewards from their Empires, tremendous. They were not cast off by barbaric races with no wealth. They were cast off by societies that had become sufficiently enriched and powerful to do so. They were cast off by their success, not their failure.
When Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia become capable of casting off US colonial rule it will because the US gave them the capabilities to do so, like a child growing up and becoming a responsible adult.
I agree with you that we cannot afford to unilaterally occupy countries. never again. We must rule them and fund our activities with the local resources. We will benefit, and the local people will reap the greatest reward by joining the ranks of developing nations in time.
The US could never be what it has now become without first being ruled by Great Britain for over 100 years. (and Great Britain made a profit)
Wealth and power must never be squandered on ventures with negative returns.