The difference between America and Britian in this case is that America is not trying to colonize or really even rule Iraq. but i will say that we will not allow a government to be in place that is "opposed" to american interests.

A free Iraq is in everyones interests. think about it. in a few years, when Iraq is stabilized, and American dollars start flowing into Iraq (and Iraqi Denaris, for that matter) It will create a huge economic boom in Iraq. the common Iraqi will slowly but surly improve his own life. While i was there, I saw it. The roads were being rebuilt, the people were out shopping and smiling (as they always do, regardless of the situation). children were going to school, people were praying without fear of being blown the F up.

The Iraqi soldiers are fighting for their freedom and look to us for guidance. We have led Iraqi soldiers into combat and they are improving. It is unfortunate and i agree unnecessary that a loss of life has occurred. the terrorists and insurgents are doing nothing but causing chaos and are not trying to improve their country.

It is our duty to do this not because we have been given it, but because we accept it. we were never given our duty in WWI or II to free europe, but we did it anyways, through our own loss of life and citizenry. we were never given our duty to help the west defeat communism, but we did it anyways.

that is what duty is. It is not "given", it is accepted. this is why we have an all volunteer military. because only a few people can accept their call of duty to their country.

Countries will always expand, money will continue to grow, untapped markets will be tapped. we cannot allow another global competitor to freedom and tolerance. so yes, we must be intolerant of any people unwilling to accept democracy.

the sooner people accept democracy, the sooner they will experience the benefits of the world.

The comparison to British Imperialism is an imperfect one; what I'm trying to get across is that while the substance has changed, the underlying attitude is still the same; in that while there is no intent to colonolise or rule, there is the intent to exert a measure of control over Iraq and the middle east. You said yourself that the US wouldn't allow a government that opposed American interests to exist; neither do I think that its coincidental that the US has a lot of troops stationed in the region around Iran. That's not really in the ethos of the American constitution, and I think theres a clear break between all the good work the US did during the cold war and what it's doing now.

Thats the ideal outcome - but bear in mind governments both sides of the atlantic expected to walk in, win a short, sharp fight with Saddam and walk (mostly, bar a couple of bases) out within a couple of years. So yes, a prosperous Iraq is good for everyone, but so far we haven't travelled very far along that road.

Of course they're trying to improve their country. Unless you have some serious problems you don't pick up a gun and walk around causing merry hell for the sake of it - and I seriously doubt that many Iraqi's have simultaneouly developed pyschosis. Yes, Iran has every interest in a weak and chaotic Iraq, so you do have a point there. But most of the Iraqi and non-Iranian aligned insurgents just want their country back.

No, they aren't being very smart about it and yes, I agree that you have every right to forcibly stop these people fighting while these people are shooting at you and/or their fellow citizens, from handcuffs to carpet bombs. Whether or not we should (I wouldn't have been hostile to the idea after building a coalition including Arab partners and the UN) have invaded is now something of a moot point, making the best of a crap situation is paramount.

Ok, but the people you were fighting to help keep free asked for and consented to it. I want to say that I think europe as a whole owes the US a debt of gratitude, not so much for WWI but definitely WWII and the ensuing cold war, and that debt isn't being honoured - which makes me somewhat angry, especially given that anti-americanism is fashionable in europe at the moment. However, I really do view 1940-64 as the US finest hour, and think that the neocons have extrapolated from this period and viewed the US as the guardian of the worlds freedom, which I think is very arrogant.

Point here is that by 1940 both Britain and France were positively pleading with the US to intervene. While Iraqi's were definitely happy to see coalition troops initially, it's not as if there is a clear and unambigous wish to see them stay.

So what then is duty? By your definition it can mean more or less anything that a person chooses to accept. Open-ended terms like that are very open to abuse. I'm sure most of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan see themselves as discharging their duty to god.

So anyone who says different is just wrong and can justifiably be subject to coercive force?

Don't get me wrong, I like freedom and tolerance. But not all good things coincide - freedom doesn't necesarily bring with it tolerance. In fact, if people are going to be free, you are going to have to accept that they are free to be intolerant as well as tolerant. Hamas was freely and democratically elected, but they aren't a tolerant group.

__________________
You can't help people being right for the wrong reasons. This fear of finding oneslef in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.

Yea I think this talk is very enlightening in the views we should have (from my PoV) on forward foreign policy.

I know I posted it earlier but I think it applies greatly here.

TED | Talks | Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace (video)

That does make interesting viewing. I'm probably going to want to watch more than once to make my mind up, but it does sound like a good idea in principle.

I also think that practically, you are going to have to build up (or perhaps more accurately from what Barnett was saying, reorganise) the core within one country (US or the EU, but I really can't see europe getting its arse in gear) and then expand it internationally - but its got to go international if its going to be legitimate in the long run.

That topic is probably worthy of debate in itself.

__________________
You can't help people being right for the wrong reasons. This fear of finding oneslef in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.

Yea it probably is, its that good of a speech.

The entire concept of enforcing freedom is nonsense and the idea that such freedom, even if it is possible to impose it, is always going to result in a better, safer world is certifiable.
When people are truly hungry for freedom then they'll fight for it like everyone else in history and once they have earned it, then they will cherish and revere it. Freedom will then have inherent value and be something that cannot be compromised on and will be of enough value that a culture of liberty can exist.

I guess I'm trying to say that freedom and respect for the next person's rights requires an evolution of behavior and beliefs that cannot be forced on anyone. These people have to yearn for freedom and as of today they apparently do not, not in overwhelming numbers anyway.

Freedom is not something that can be force fed but rather something that you have to subdue people that want it, to keep them from having it.

Democracy at gunpoint is an outright lie. It's an oxymoron at best.

i dont think the world should be united, and will never be united, if the world is united, the world will loose charachter, its beautifull diverse identities that inhabit the earth is probably the only thing that Humans have added to Earth's Natural beauty... i mean, you find in the Sahara desert Berbers with their own culture, while in Chinese Mountains Buddhist Monks, with their spirituality, and in African Savana in Kenya's red dressed warriors, and in India Humans and Animals living side by side in peace, and in America, cowboys, still cattling the old Western way, and in Arab Cities, people still shopping from markets instead of Malls, and sit on Street Cafes to drink a cup of coffe, and in France people basking on the side of the streets watching the world go by.

if the world becomes one , the world will loose its Identity...
i do believe that the world should be more or less be united, regional wise, i mean, for example, Europe has a very strong cultural similarities, so does the Arab States, and South East Asian Mainland states (or how i like to call them SEAM), they need to unite so problems and tensions cease.

__________________

Arab league, You bring up a very good argument. the best ive heard so far. I would like to bring up this point:

world unification should be a goal of all people. no one says you cant worship how you want. no one says yo cant say what you want. on the contrary, i wish to dispose of those who would interfere with your freedom to live peacefully and respect your neighbors. does this involve the forceful occupation and ousting of certain governments? yes. unfortunatly.

but, being from africa, you must certainly see that some people do not have the knowledge or ability to fight for their own freedom. look at the Sudan/Darfur(sp) conflict. surely these atrocities must be stopped. the African Union did answer this call, and sent peacekeepers to darfur, i believe about 35,000 troops. will this create a long lasting peace? I believe that is only possible if humans are accountable to each other.

Not just to the US. I do not think us citizens are flawless, but i do think that our intellectual elite do have the right idea about how to solve world problems. and i do think that US citizens should be held accountable concerning international affairs.

you call yourself the Arab League. i see you have a map of nothern Africa and some of the middle east, I assume these are the areas you wish to unite under a set of controlled priciples of living. I will also assume this would be ruled under a muslim law, because of your calligraphy.

I do not want the world to be like america. i agree it would be boring. but i do believe that all humans are born with rights. if you violate the rights of others, you deserve to be punished for your crimes.

so now the question is: what right does america have to say what is right and what is wrong? who are we to assume authority over people from a foreign nation? my answer: who but america can help the weak, the tired, the sick, the poor, the oppressed? we must enforce the idea of liberty and the rights of man given to them by God or Allah or whatever creator you believe in.

for a start, the map shown of North Africa and some of the Middle east is actually an Organization called the Arab Leagu, or the league of Arab states, which is like the EU, or the African Union, and yes i do wish to have a reunited Arab state, that is modern, liberal and democratic, but not secular, our culture is too deeply integrated with religion (islam and christianity) that we will loose alot of it if we have a secular state, as for the caligraphy, the caligraphy is simply on of the 7 (i think) Arabic caligraphy, and is not related to islam at all.
as for the Arab Dream of Unity, it not only shared by me, but by around 70% of the Arab's 350 million population

in y opinion, a world that looks like america is an ugly world, as for Darfure, its only up to Sudan to find a solution, and they dont need foreign interfearance, since it will only make hings worse, and this includes the AU, EU, and the USA, this is probably why the Arab League decided to stay outside of the Issue, so it wouldnt be Bias like the previously mentioned Organizations

__________________

Or maybe its because the Arab League has no problem watching Arabs systematically erase Africans.

So are ya talking about a new Caliphate then?