So… how many american lives have we saved from the evil Saddam?
Right now, all I see are dead americans steadily trickling back.
Is there any evidence you can point to that can compare to that stream of body bags?
As for WMD, I feel much less safe now that it has become obvious that the US gov has no friggin’ clue where they are if they do exist. Presumably, they would be in the hands of enemies which much less to lose than Saddam.
In terms of the security of US citizens, has the Iraq war done any good on the whole?
Four months after the US removes one of the worse and most brutal regime in current history since Hitler and Stalin and you want a significant progress report on the effects of that ouster?
Are you nuts?
Wait 2 years and ask this question again. Maybe then there will be some unclassified intelligence data on the effects of global terrorism. Maybe there can be some documented and corroborated statistics of terrorist activities against US citizens. Perhaps there can some noticable feelings of security and confidence in the american people after everything has relatively calmed down.
All of that takes time and a lot of follow up. Certainly more than the piddly 4 months that has just occurred. War and peace does not operate like a poptart in a microwave. It takes a lot of time, a whole lot of work and tons of patience.
You are assuming the things will calm down. I have yet to see any evidence for that belief. If you’d like to provide some please do. If you want to sit there and assume thing will get better, well go ahead, but you’re not convincing anyone.
Basically, you’ve admitted that you have no clue if we’re any safer, although you seem to assume the evidence will turn up eventually for some unknown reason. Thanks.
Considering we went against an overwhelming international consensus, inflamed millions of Muslems in the Middle East, and destroyed the entire infrastructure of the country on the pretext that Iraq posed an eminent threat to the United States, I think the question in the OP is absolutely justified.
No, the war has probably damaged American national security.
As you note if Iraq actually has any WMD the failure of the American troops to secure them means that the war has increased the chances that they fall in the hands of terrorists. This was, of course, the very thing the war was supposed to prevent.
In addition to this:
1)The war has cost the US one of its most valuable intelligence sources about Islamic terrorists: Syria.
There have been reports of increased Al-quaeda recruiting and certainly there is great anger in the Arab world about the war.
3)The continuing deployments in horrible conditions in Iraq will erode troop morale and readiness and perhaps reduce recruitment in future years.
4)While it was focussed on Iraq the administration has let the situation in Afghanistan and North Korea drift. The latter is probably the most serious threat facing the US.
5)The war and its aftermath will probably end up costing 100-200 billion dollars. That is money that could have been used improving homeland security among other things.
6)The war has badly damaged American credibility and alienated public opinion in almost every single allied country.
I can barely see any plus side from the pov. of US national security to balance even one of these points let alone all of them. Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator but there is little reason to believe he was a significant threat to the US.
The vast majority of countries involved in that consensus are pretty unwholesome tyrannies of various kinds. Their opinion should carry little, if any, moral weight with the more civilised and enlightened countries of the world.
If you are referring to rulers, their state of inflammation does not appear to have changed one way or the other.
If you are referring to the: “Muslim Street” then its benighted denizens possess and wield no more power than their rulers permit them to demonstrate in the public eye.
This piece of hyperbole is absurd on its face.
On this final point, I tend to agree with you. Iraq posed no imminent threat to any country except Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, if they were ever left to fend for themselves.
There haven’t been any terrorist attacks against America or American embassies since the Iraq war. It’s much too early to know, but so far the early results seem to be that we are safer.
Ah, yes, the war on Iraq was only opposed by those well-known dens of thieves, villains, and scum - the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union. I don’t like the “rolleyes” smiley, but sometimes, it’s just too appropriate to pass up: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The United Nations is not a nation. It is a congeries of countries which vary from good, to bad, to stinking, to obscene.
How a person sorts out the relative worth of a polity depends on the political mindset of the person doing the categorising.
To take one example, someone like yourself may automatically think of Fidel Castro as a “Leader”, whereas I think of him as a “Dictator”. If so, then there is probably nothing that can make us see this or any similar issue in the same way.
The European Union is a mere sub set of this planet’s countries and the aforementioned UN. The EU does not speak as one except, perhaps, in your fantasies and its dreams (or vice versa).
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of the countries on this planet (most of which are also in the UN) are dens of thieves, villains and scum (to use your terms).
I agree with your descriptors, by the way, and I should have used them instead of the cumbersome and wishy washy: “unwholesome tyrannies”.
Spin it however you like, Alan Owes Bess, the fact remains that the vast majority of the countries that opposed the war on Iraq are representative democracies, and not “evil” dictatorships.
You’ve piqued my curiosity, however. What countries would you consider “civilised and enlightened?”
The vast majority of countries that are in the United Nations most definitely are not “representative democracies”. A term I find exceedingly irritating, simply for its inaccuracy. I regard the accurate term to be “elective dictatorship”.
If you disagree, look at yourself. Your political power is as worthless as if the divine right of kings were still operative.
I don’t want to be accused of hijacking a thread by going through a long process of defining my terms, which could take half a page and would be bad manners to the OP, simply because it’s off topic.
To try to address your question directly, the only civilised and enlightened countries on this planet are those which are directed by a sense of moral worth in their domestic and foreign policy actions.
That is to say, none of them.
However, that is not to say that a sliding scale of moral worth cannot be developed as measured against the ideal.
Those countries that achieve the ideal higher moral plane in their actions (however you may wish to define it) come closer to achieving a moral worth. This all depends on who is defining what is and what is not moral.
Only embassies count? Safer? I would say those wishing to fight against America have found a new reason and place in Iraq where Americans are being attacked and killed daily. But I guess you are not counting those.
Alan Owes Bess, the fact is that the great majority of developed, democratic, western countries did not support the war or strongly opposed it.
A small number of the so called “western democracies” led by France were firmly opposed, a small majority took no stance, another small number, especially from the former “Eastern Bloc” supported the action.
The rest of the countries that do not fall under the category of those in paragraph one, the dictatorships, have no moral standing in any area whatsoever.
In other words, bearing in mind the exceedingly dubious legitimacy of the so called “western democracies” I believe the moral standing of straight dictatorships is so much lower that their position on any action involving human rights is unworthy of consideration.
At the rate you’re spinning, you could play a 78 without a stylus.
There was only one country in the whole world where a majority of its citizens supported the invasion. I’ll let you guess which one it was.
Hint: Public opinion in Britain just barely surpasssed the 50% approval rating after the invasion became a fait accomplis.
As for the rest of the Coalition of The Bought and Paid For, it was the Goverments of those countries that went against the overwhelming dissenting opinion of their constituents. So I take it that nations like Spain and Italy, wouldn’t qualify as “representative democracies” either. Yet I don’t hear you bitching about them.
IOW, rjung’s original comment is amply justified by the facts and no amount of whishful thinking or revisionist history can change that.
At the rate you’re spinning, you could play a 78 without a stylus.
There was only one country in the whole world where a majority of its citizens supported the invasion. I’ll let you guess which one it was.
Hint: Public opinion in Britain just barely surpasssed the 50% approval rating after the invasion became a fait accomplis.
As for the rest of the Coalition of The Bought and Paid For, it was the Goverments of those countries that went against the overwhelming dissenting opinion of their constituents. So I take it that nations like Spain and Italy, wouldn’t qualify as “representative democracies” either. Yet I don’t hear you bitching about them.
IOW, rjung’s original comment is amply justified by the facts and no amount of whishful thinking, mud-slinging or revisionist history can change that.
Yes, those dead Americans who keep piling up in Iraq don’t count. Why go to America to kill Americans when they come to you? It was what, 5 years between the WTC attacks? And it hasn’t even been 2 years since the last one. Keep in mind everything seemed cozy on Sept 10, 2001 as well.
Exactly my point. We dont know if this is a lull caused by Iraq drawing in all the murderous yahoos to Iraq, cutting up Al Qaeda to ribbons in Afghanistan, heightened 9-11 security measures, changing intelligence personnel or policies, visible military presence in hot areas, administration policies toward terrorists and rogue states, or if they just went on vacation.