We all know that the US attacked Iraq NOT to democracise the Iraqi people but because we believed they had weapons of mass destruction.
Now here is the question
If the US had attacked Iraq with the original intent of tearing down a dictatoship and replacing the government with " a democratic regime"…would you risk the life of one American soldier to do this or the @ 20,000 troups that lost limbs, eyes, arms and endured other major injuries?
I, personally, say NO…it is not worth it…
On the other hand, what would you do if Iran, Syria, and perhaps the Saudi’s had a large military buildup? Would you sit back and wait, try to utilize dialogue, or wait for the first shot to be fired.
In short, at what point, if at all, should the US using our troops get involved with stopping a dictatorial regime? (if we are not attacked).
I an uncertain in which context you pose the question. In the immediate context, it is a streaming load, the Bushiviks care squat about dictatorships. GeeDubya glowers at nasty old Syria, because we got buddies like Pakistan, in the very front rank of democratic military dictatorships. We’ve spent the better part of the last hundred years propping up some of the nastiest bunches of thugs ever, we start in getting all pious about freedom and liberty, we won’t even fool ourselves. Recent virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.
In the larger context, assuming a genuine concern with international human rights… The most powerful nation in human history genuinely and deeply committed to universal human rights and progress? What a good idea. What a great idea!
If God had that good an idea, He would take the rest of the day off.