How much do we help each other?

[michel]

At the moment, we have the Iraqi problem (the one started from the fact that the greedy west went into Iraq to ensure that our supply of oil was safe).

When talk was abbounding in the News about the invasion of Iraq by the west, I was one of the Idealists (and more than often therefore easily duped) who congratulated Blair on joining in (I even sent him a personal letter saying that I thought he was doing the right thing) - and I got a handwritten card back from him (and it was he who wrote and signed it0.............He must have got so many like mine..........

The reason I bring this up is because I saw the stars of the new film (forget the name).......what a surprise!

A film produced in rwanda/Burundi about the mess we Westeners have been ignoring there, and the need for people like us (The first world, comfortable in our wealth - as nations-(well, on paper)) to become involved in removing obstacles to the development of second World and third world Countries.

So, this is what I ask: Was it wrong for the West to depose Saddam Hussein ?- would it have been immoral to ignore the problem? Do we have a duty to try and care for the countries that are struggling ? - and if so, how should we limit our involvement (and get rid of those selfish motives that go along side)?

 

[Maxist]

It was wrong for us to take Hussein. It was also very very foolish; agreeably, he has done some bad things in the past, but at least back then Iraq worked; now it is on the brink of Civil War, if not already in the things. First world countries cannot police the world for the other countries.

 

[Karl R]

Was it wrong for the West to depose Saddam Hussein ?- would it have been immoral to ignore the problem? Do we have a duty to try and care for the countries that are struggling ? - and if so, how should we limit our involvement (and get rid of those selfish motives that go along side)?

Deposing Saddam Hussein was a stupid move. By that I mean that it was poorly thought through.

Bush completely failed to realize that winning the peace would be harder than winning the war. If Iraq devolves fully into civil war (which seems likely), the situation will be worse for everyone in the country than it was during Saddam's despotic reign. Under the current state of affairs, even oil production has plateaued at a level that's lower than the production between the gulf wars.

As a child, my mother used to tell me, "Violence never solves anything." She was wrong. Violence can be used to solve many problems, and it's often the quickest and most gratifying solution. It is also the solution that carries the most long-term consequences.

There are other ways to solve problems. The US government has a superb set of mediators at their disposal ... and these mediators are mostly used to mediate between companies. They'd probably be a lot more useful if they were considered and utilized in foreign policy.

Foreign aid is a lot better way to influence the world. We make a lot more friends and a lot fewer enemies when we use it.

Violence is a solution, but it should be one that we are extremely cautious about using.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We should support/not support economically. We still have the bully pulpit when it comes to the world economy. Resorting to brute force is only for intellectual cowards: they are afraid to THINK.

 

[c0da]

but at least back then Iraq worked

Rigged elections, people being tortured, mass murders of civillians. By no stretch of the imagination, well my imagination at least, did Iraq work. I am not saying it does now, but I think with time, things will improve.