ATG wrote:
Why assume we went to war to feed the military industrial complex?
Could it be that we thought that by lifting the people up from oppression they would have better lives?
First, can you conclusively state that they are living better lives? Some areas are better, yes, but is the country as a whole? Saddam was brutal, but he did maintain order. Without him or someone else brutal in charge, we've seen what militias can do to Iraq.
As far as our assumptions go, I suppose it comes down to this. I'm a Libertarian, so more often than not, I distrust the government. In warfare, I especially distrust the government, because of the nature of war. Maybe we've entered war for noble reasons in the past, but when you consider the machinations of American foreign policy during the Cold War, it seems pretty obvious that we've developed a culture of manipulation.
In the name of fighting Communism, we've rationalized supporting brutal dictators -- Pinochet and Saddam to name just a few. Our government is still one of the 5 largest international arms dealers in the world; a business in which we typically supply Third World warlords (often through private sellers, so as to arouse less attention). We've turned the chaos of the Third World into a profitable playground for not only our arms businesses though. Plenty of American-owned companies participate in the Cola wars and the "Blood" Diamond industry. The government could do plenty of things about this, but they won't touch these companies due to their lobbyists and soft money. People wonder why so much of the world hates us, but when it comes to the people affected by our corporations and our arms dealings, I can't blame them.
In the end, I still side with America out of practicality, and because we still do humanitarian things (like donate billions to the tsunami victims), but we're slowly approaching a point where we may soon do more harm to the world than good. When it reaches that point, I may switch allegiances and citizenship.