Reply #159: Your 3 points bear little resemblance to your original "moral responsibility" to not "abandon" Iraq

[Faryn Balyncd]

Forgive me if I am skeptical of your motives, but after all this blather about our "moral responsibility" to "not abandon" Iraqis, it appears your real reasons are finally surfacing.

And, your words are indeed direct:

"what they want is inconsequential to what is best for everyone involved"

Perhaps others here may feel that one little point may be worth considering: IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Your 3 points:

"1. Secure United States national interests, by ensuring that Iran does not seize control of Iraq directly or indirectly.
2. Ensure that there is a genuine democracy within Iraq, so that the Iraqi's can live peacefully and free.
3. Ensure that there is not regional destabilization."

I would think, are WORTHY GOALS of American foreign policy.

In fact, I believe they should be near the top of the list. (Straight out of the neoconservative/neoliberal playboook though they be.)

. . . . .

But being a WORTHY GOAL of American foreign policy DOES NOT confer upon us the right to pursue those goals militarily, while violated the lives, property and liberties of human you appear to think beneath you.

. . . . .

I think that that is perhaps the fundamental difference between your philosophy and that of some of your critics.

You might want to reconsider whether or not such a policy (of forceful pursuit of noble goals, regardless of the rights or opinions of others) is, in fact, an approach likely to result in success (or whether it just might be likely to foster and solidify perpetual conflict and intransigent hatred.)

Perhaps you might also want to consider whether it might be helpful to state your priorities opening and directly, rather than clothing them in faux-compassionate language of "moral responsibility" not to "abandon" Iraqis.