Iraq - yet another failed U.S. social program

[SteveA]

People say the war in Iraq is representative of capitalism.

I slaim the war represents nothing of capitalism but of socialist tendancies in our populace instead.

Capitalism is based upon individual private ownership and free trade. Corporations are just an extension of that when things are owned in common between multiple people, though corporate laws have been corrupting to this institution (just as marriage laws have corrupting to that institution).

Anyway, a typical socialist stance is that it's ok to steal forcibly from one person using police as long as there's envisioned to be enough benefit to others in the process. Property rights take a sideline to "society's" interests (whatever that means) and the desires of the whole outweight the rights of the minority.

It's oftentimes placed in a class warfare setting where people are no longer treated equally but it becomes us versus them, and their property rights don't count (but ours do, of course).

Let's draw parallels of this ideology with what's happening in Iraq:

1) Someone has something valuable that needs to be redistributed.

Problem: Iraq has oil.

2) Justify why property rights must be ignored.

Excuse: Terrorists have infiltrated the country.

3) Government forces arrive on the scene to fix these injustices to insure "freedom and democracy" prevail (somehow simulaneously though it seems impossible - isn't democracy based upon outnumbering someone - might makes right, whereas freedom is based upon protecting individual liberties against such force?)

Resolution: U.S. forces invade the area and take control to create a new government to control the area.

(You can compare that last one to the IRS attaching your wages or the courts giving away your property etc.)

Maybe oil truly had nothing to do with our involvement in Iraq but in either event, capitalism is respective of the property of others, and denies force as a means to promote "trade" with someone.

Some of the signs of socialism creating the war in Iraq are also:

1) A government run economy, or control of our industries. We have Halliburton that supposedly won a no-bid contract to do the rebuilding there.

2) Many people were already declining in their support of things after Afghanistan,

3) Socialism fails, and as usual the promises of rebuilding Iraq have resulted in a poor quality of life there. We still took plenty of resources from the U.S., so the costs remain real while the benefits remain limited.

4) The U.S. was created as a federal structure, yet when Iraqies proposed a federal structure for their government, our leaders discouraged such a choice. Socialism relies on large scale centralization to power these institutions. Capitalism doesn't rely on much of anything except the individual freedom to use what they have as they wish.

The war in Iraq is a result of socialistic views in our society, not out of any respect for capitalistic principles.

[SteveA]

I just saw this quote:

Once there was a man who said,
“Range me all men of the world in rows.”
And instantly
There was terrific clamour among the people
Against being ranged in rows.
There was a loud quarrel, world-wide.
It endured for ages;
And blood was shed
By those who would not stand in rows,
And by those who pined to stand in rows.
Eventually, the man went to death, weeping.
And those who stayed in bloody scuffle
Knew not the great simplicity.

~ Stephen Crane

[Milton Bradley]

To some of us, the outcome matters not, it is the (illegal) philosophy of those in control that we stand against.


For me its all about the justification for interfering in other peoples self determination.


Where does the President claim to get the authority to act on the behalf of Iraqi's in the first place?


That is the real question that needs to be answered.


In truth, no matter what answer you give to that last question, the ultimate truth is that the President does not have the authority to act on their behalf with US taxpayer dollars. No matter how you manipulate the evidence, he has no legal justification to spend taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

[SteveA]

I have a bad habit of leaving dangling sentences:

2) Many people were already declining in their support of things after Afghanistan,

I meant to say that people were unable to remove their support for the war, because there's no check box on tax returns saying where you want your money spent (not that I'd really trust such check boxes to be honored in any event).

[RickSp]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is the opposite of a free market. It is merchantile imperialism, pure and simple; naked force wrapped in tattered flag. It ugly, destructive of both ourselves and out enemies, and doomed to fail.

It appears that we not only do not learn from history but that we try to keep making the same mistakes over and over for maximum effect.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great thread, great posts. I don't think I can add much except an " I agree ".