Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy at gunpoint.

America has always been at its best when it lives up to its ideals, and at its worst when it discards those ideals. America has often been in the wrong, but on balance, the world has been better off for having a great champion of liberal democracy.

With Trump, it's not a question of believing things that are right or wrong. For the post-truth mindset, right and wrong don't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. There is only power. The second Trump presidency is the first time in modern history that America is no longer a great nation.

I can understand that point of view from a U.S. citizen's (and allied West) point of view that you think US is really ideological. But as a non-US person, even when US pretended to be ideological, there is an underlying reality of maintaining hegemony, access to resources, etc.

When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attack India (not clear the intentions, but Soviets got involved). There are many such cases.

For rest of the world to believe that US has only best intentions, they have to be really naive. In case Saddam, would US have the same enthusiasm for democracy if it was not for oil? US has toppled democratic governments when they were not aligned to its interest.

To put it in personal terms, would anyone trust someone with their money to person who only cheats 70% of times, while is honest 30% of times? The conclusion to be had is that those in incidents of honesty aligned with the interests of the person. Not because he or she was actually a good person.

The US got involved with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, because they were enemies of Vietnam.

This says enough.

A couple of examples to illustrate your comment.

1. Relationship between USA and Kurds. Kurds have been helping Americans, putting lives on the line, are a rare democratic and free side in the region, but are constantly being violated by Americans despite that.

2. Syria. No problem supporting the literal Alqaeda leader!

3. Just a history of supporting dictators. Chile and Americas, Asia, Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal).

4. Even currently, no problem supporting e.g. Saudis.

>No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans.

The push into Iraq to remove Hussein was an effort to gain control over the oil and gas production in Iraq. It was favored by the domestic oil and gas industry here in the US and once we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan after Sept 11 and Bush&Co began making noise about Iraq and WoMD, the industry began digging up old geological and geophysical studies of the region to build interest and knowledge base domestically so that once our troops had control of the production areas domestic operators could move in to handle production. Industry publications had adverts for old Iraq datasets and services related to it before any invasion happened. Maybe they were just hedging their bets you say. Yeah, right. It was always about oil and gas in Iraq. They just needed to remove the thorn in their side and install a compliant government.

"Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans."

There's not a single drop of evidence supporting that. But we have madleine albright callously dismissing the death of an enormous amount of kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com