MJ, Ideally, it's not a good national policy to base an economy solely and exclusively on war and ammunition production. But it is morally defensible to promote justice, freedom and equality in the world. If there is injustice in the world, it is licit to stop the violators of these ideals. The act of stopping the violators may unfortunately result in violence and wars. But this is justifiable because the means and the objective end are both moral and for the common good.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mjackson74@...> wrote : You are being naive. The international community WANTS this situation - war is good for business. The more fighting there is the more money both governments and the arms manufacturers and arms dealers make, not to mention the lobbying groups who lobby the guv'ment on behalf of the arms makers and defense contractors. From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: US-Supplied Weapons End Up With IS Mike, As I mentioned to Fleetwood, the solution is to have an international force to eliminate IS, maintain the peace and stability in the land. This should not be shouldered by the USA exclusively. The Arab and European countries should contribute their share of troop strength in this endeavor. As a matter of fact, the UN should send their own troops there too. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Funny thing is... we had it won by 2008. We had an Iraqi army in training... yes training and relative calm and order established when our *Dear One* decided that He needed to fulfill his campaign promise to bring the troops home, before the Iraqis were really ready. Now we're in this current situation that Bush and everyone else warned would happen if we left prematurely. How long would we have needed to stay? Who knows? We still have troops in Duetschland and Japan and they aren't seen as occupiers but as allies. Four thousand lives, hundreds of thousands of minds and limbs, trillions of dollars, and hopes for a stabilizing force for peace in a region, flushed down the toilet for a campaign promise and now we may be need to return and do it all again or face a worse situation. Did you notice, barely mentioned in the news, that the troops are not coming home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, as promised? Yes, now they're staying... indefinitely. Surprise surprise! From: "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: US-Supplied Weapons End Up With IS You know that sign in gift shops, "you break it, you buy it"? Same thing applies here - We own the mess. I was a little naive about our intentions in Iraq when we went in the first time, but after I saw the deliberate sacking of their national museum, and have recognized since that we were solely protecting our interests, their culture be damned. This being the case, we will only attract those who need work, into the Iraqi army, not those who truly want to defend their country. Remember "Vietnamization", where we trained a similar army in S. Vietnam, to fight their own battles? The country was overrun in a couple of years. Same thing will happen in Iraq, if we don't land troops again. What a mess. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Entrenched corruption in the Iraqi military is undermining the fight against the Islamic State. This is the downside in relying on a questionable army to carry out the task of suppressing the Islamists. If conditions get worse, US troops may end up fighting in Iraq again. In the meantime, Iran is secretly working on acquiring Iraq if things fall apart. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-corrupt-government-weapons-reportedly-133416968.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-corrupt-government-weapons-reportedly-133416968.html
