|
United States foreign policy has often followed a "you break it, you buy it" policy of rebuilding the (former) enemy nation after war's end. The U.S. invested considerable money in Germany and Japan after World War II, and have spent equally as daunting amounts rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it proper for the U.S. to rebuild Japan after dropping the atomic bomb? Was it proper for the U.S. to rebuild Germany after the Berlin wall collapsed? Does the victorious nation in the aftermath of war have a responsibility to rebuild the losers?
showing 2 of 4
show all
|
I think the US rebuilt Germany/Japan to create allies against the USSR. Given that the US can destroy Iran easily, I don't think we need to do the same with Iraq/Afghanistan.
I think the purpose of going to war is to rebuild a country and to form a government that isn't intent on murdering innocent people. So, in a sense, yes. However, the reason why we go to war is to retaliate against an attack.
The purpose of war is the same as the purpose of every action taken by a proper government: to secure its citizens against rights violations. So the goal of war for a proper government is the elimination of the threat posed by the aggressor government. Rebuilding the aggressor is not a responsibility. You are not obligated to bandage the wounds you gave a bully in self-defense. You may do so if, after securing your safety, you see it as a non-sacrificial way to help your safety persist.
I wasn't trying to imply an altruistic solution. I haven't articulated it well enough. However, you did finish what I wanted to say. I meant that it would be more beneficial to install a government that would no longer be a threat to us and everyone else. Good will come out of that. More advanced countries will further develop the world at a faster rate--technology, capitalism, etc.