In politics there are no good guys, for what may be good for one is not good for the other. In any situation the power base is prime and the victor wishes to have all the spoils, whether this be good for the population. In any of these conflicts the population of any of the areas are not the problem, but they are the ones that suffer. The victors take, take take, without a thought of the population and the desecration the conflicts have caused.

It is in this respect that the victor is never victorious for no matter what the result you create enemies within the population, when the victor would expect friends.

Just think of yourself in this situation who have lost a leadership which was all out for themselves to be replaced by a weaker but often similar leadership, if in fact there is any effective leadership as all fractions will take what they can.

Would it have been best to not become involved in the first place for at least most, if not all would know were they are.

There are no good guys.

Phil Ebersole's Blog

Back in 2003, I thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq might be a good idea.

I thought we Americans could atone for all the suffering we had caused the Iraqi people by the low-level war by the Clinton administration by overthrowing the evil tyrant Saddam—and, yes, he really was evil and a tyrant—and allowing the Iraqis to choose their own government.

The United States would then, so I thought, have a democratic ally in the Middle East whose people were genuinely pro-American, and would free ourselves from dependence on the Saudi monarchy.

The U.S. invasion made things worse, both from the standpoint of the Iraqi people and of us Americans.   Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, hundreds of thousands became refugees.

Maybe there would have been a different result if the U.S. occupation authorities’ priorities had not been to get control of Iraqi oil and create money-making opportunities for…

View original post 341 more words

Advertisements