TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What did the war on Iraq by USA achieve ??

War on Iraq by USA stating Iraq had nuclear / biological arsenal has killed / injured / shattered thousands of life's (including thousands of US Soldiers). Finally USA did not find any arsenal.

Do majority world leaders really want peace?? Or Do They want to protect their own business interests??

Are majority world leaders using common citizens to promote their own selfish interests??

If a democratically elected country (USA) can destroy thousands of human life's by waging a war for false reasons what can other countries do??

Share:
  • Apr 2 2013: I haven't read all the posts
    so I am assuming no one is willing to simply answer your questions.
    So, I will.

    "Do majority world leaders really want peace?"

    No, they don't. Out of practically the entire world's population, most people want peace. So who doesn't? Leaders. Why? Because they profit from wars, both financially and power-wise. In order to get agreement for war, people have to be fooled.

    "Or Do They want to protect their own business interests??

    Yes, they do. They are heavily invested in war, keeping humans from attaining, maintaining and living in peace while their interests are not only in resources but also in drugs, arms and most everything that brings in billions of dollars in profits. Are these profits going in your pocket? In my pocket? In the average citizen's pockets? Of course not! Yet people somehow continue to look up to these pathological liars, these psychopaths, sociological crazies, these monsters trained by Nazis, these mass murders of men, women and especially children, and believe them, believe in them, believe what they say and what they promise? Why yes. That is what crazy people do. They believe the most insane things.

    "Are majority world leaders using common citizens to promote their own selfish interests??"
    Yes, of course they are.
    I've read the oaths of policemen, FBI agents, military soldiers and agents of the government and CIA along with those of judges and politicians. No where, in any of those oaths do they proclaim their allegiance to protecting their fucking
    bosses! Yet that is what they do.
    And they are used to kill other humans simply because some moron like d. rumsfeld, tells them it's okay.
    So, the people being used are Manchurian Citizens of Evil and they follow the orders of Manchurian Candidates of Evil.

    "If a democratically elected country (USA) can destroy thousands of human life's by waging a war for false reasons what can other countries do??"

    The "what other" of your last question, hasn't yet begun.
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2013: Good question... not a good debate, but I am happy Mr.Chance gave it a shot.
    "What did the war on Iraq by USA achieve??"
    It did end a very suppressive dictatorship. There are probably a number of people who are satisfied with that outcome.
    Your questions imply motives for the execution of the war. How do we identify motive. Who can read minds.
    We can only judge by actions.
    Was the USA duped into believing there were WMD arsenal? That's the current statement.
    Do world leaders want peace? They say so.
    Are they protecting their business interest? Motive again.
    Leaders promoting their own interests? Dictators have it easier, freely elected have a much more difficult time, I would think.
    Any country waging a war for any reason will take thousands of lives.
  • Apr 1 2013: Democracy Puts a HUGE responsibility on citizens of the country to select leaders who have have the foresight. Unfortunately Citizens are ill equipped to take the decision as Information flowing to them is managed by media managers of Rich people. Elections are managed / rigged by huge amounts of money which a normal citizen cannot even imagine exists.
    This manipulations & influenced of citizens happen in all countries from Developed to Developing.
    What is the solution ??????
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2013: Democracy is thought (by the most vocal of global voices) to be the best form of government and the most ideal for civilised society.
    Now, if this is true, and the best and most civilised of human society have brought about the scale of destruction in Iraq; then the evils of the good to worst of these forms of government would be better imagined than experienced.

    I pray for a peaceful world. And I hope that I'm not alone in this.
    • Comment deleted

    • Apr 1 2013: I don't think that Democracy has ever claimed to be a peaceful form of government. Democratic nations are still nations, and all nations have their own interests and are willing to be violent to protect their interests.
      Now as for the evils of "worse" governments, in all honesty it depends on the people in charge. Take, for example, Dictatorship you could end up with Hitler or you could end up with Cincinnatus, all Democracy allows is a choice between them. A Democracy could still choose Hitler and that government could commit horrific acts.

      P.S. I'm not saying that Bush was Hitler; Hitler was just used as an example.
    • Apr 1 2013: There would be rich corporations / people who would be exploiting majority - be it democracy or otherwise. Guess our society is naturally made up to work in this manner.

      Hope exploiters stop short of promoting violence / killing.
    • Apr 5 2013: I think the US is more a Plutocracy than a Democracy.
  • Apr 22 2013: Hello,

    Well, I'd like to show my point of view at:
    http://stratapacis.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/how-to-achieve-world-peace.html

    Thanks
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2013: The war waged by the USA in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east has done nothing except to deepen the country into more debt. That might well be what it was all about at first, to break down the USD.

    The other countries will do what they have to do, see the USD as a non-valuable currency and sell their products to someone with a valuable currency.
  • Apr 7 2013: Yes, however an oligarcy does not necessarily mean rule by the rich, it may simply be the priviliged. A plutocracy is also usually disguised as a democracy as the masses would not stand for it if they knew. A Plutocracy is characterize for ignoring their social responsibilities to the poor, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict, and corrupting their societies with greed and hedonism. Sound familiar?
  • thumb
    Apr 3 2013: Perhaps you should direct your questions to the Kurds, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Kuwaitis...
  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: You have five interrogative statements in your post. You should not ask five questions in a debate. Which question do you want to debate?
  • Apr 2 2013: You are assuming that there are rational reasons for actions. Even when the reason is emotional - someone will provide what seems a reasoned explanation. The Roman Empire had five Emperors in a row called the Five Good Emperors. The last one was Marcus Aurelius. He had a son named Commodius or Commodus or something like that. That son was not a good emperor. George Bush was considered a good President but raised taxes because it was the right thing to do. He did not win a second term. He had a son called W. W was elected twice. W was not considered as bright but he was elected twice. Iraq has never been an example to suggest that W was smart like his Dad. A bad war can destroy a country. While I might say that the Iraq War has not been a good thing for anyone except Iran, but with all the death and suffering I would assume they wish W had been smarter too. No one likes pain and misery so I assume Iran believes that it is a sad and stupid thing too.
  • thumb
    Apr 1 2013: i recommend the documentary "no end in sight"
  • thumb
    Apr 1 2013: "Peace" and "democracy" are used to sugar coat exploitation and control. Saddam wasn't obedient, so George W.'s administration removed him and made an example. That's one less disobedient dictator and a show for Iran. An Iran-American war has been long in the making, and the events today are absolutely rooted in the past.

    In 1941 Allied forces overthrew the Shah of Iran to secure the Trans-Iranian Railway and the oil fields. The Shah was Axis friendly and the railroad was needed to share supplies between the US and USSR. He went into exile and was replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who unlike his father chose to cater to the West. Britain and the USSR occupied Iran during the war, and afterwards it was given democratic independence. Iran was one of our early forced democracies, which we interesting enough overthrew a second time to implement a dictatorship.

    In 1951, Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister (with near-unanimous support from their Parliament) nationalized their oil fields. At that time Iran's oil was controlled by BP (then the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company). Eisenhower and Churchill led a coup d'état, overthrew the democratic government and replaced the Prime Minister with a Nazi (Fazlollah Zahedi). We reinstated our US-backed Shah and Iran was a loyal dictatorship until 1979.

    The overthrow of Iran's government in 1979 is the event most people are familiar with. Our Shah was disposed and an anti-US republic took power. This set the stage for our work with Saddam - his party (the Ba'athists) opposed the new regime in Iran and the Iraq Communist Party. We supported him during the Iran-Iraq War, then the Bush administration chose to dispose of him. They failed and waited for Clinton to leave office, then had another go.

    The Middle East, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, has been repeatedly shaped by Western powers and ruled by dictators that secured their power by succumbing to Western interests. The propaganda will say what it needs.
  • Mar 31 2013: The war achieved its primary goal:

    Many billions of dollars were taken from taxpayers and delivered to USA corporations.

    I strongly suspect that a secondary goal was to establish a USA military base in Iraq, and I suspect that goal will not endure for more than another year or two.

    "Are majority world leaders using common citizens to promote their own selfish interests??" Yes, of course. Most world leaders are just as selfish as most people.
    • Apr 1 2013: Very truly said.

      It is difficult to agree with - "Most world leaders are just as selfish as most people." I am not sure most people are so selfish as our leaders; Leaders must be at least 10 times more selfish than his supporters.