Are we safer as a nation after the Iraq war? I know the President said we would be, but I can’t see how. It doesn’t look like Iraq had any WMD’s. Nor does the war seem to have helped with the Israeli peace process (as some said it would). So for all the expense, are we as a nation any safer?
No.
I feel no safer. Whether we are in fact we are truly safe is, after all, up to the people who would attack us and by those who would protect us.
I don’t think the war in Iraq did much to sway those who would attack us to our side. I might even say that more of these people were created by the war in Iraq, but that’s a bit silly, because if the war in Iraq were to spurn on new terrorists then they were probably itching to attack in the first place.
At the same time, the war was against a threat that, in hindsight, seems minimal. In light of the cost of the war - in money, manpower, products, lives and reputation - we may have been made weaker and thus less safe; we may be spreading ourselves thin, relatively speaking (in that the resources we expended in Iraq may have been put to better use, in other forms, here at home).
One thing in our defense may have been our image; America looks a little more like a loose cannon now, and - despite the effect it has on our old allies - it does send a message that we’ll fight, and fight hard. That may have discouraged rogue nations a little bit.
Frankly, I hope it did. That’s about the best immediate effect I could hope for, at this point - that our war with Iraq freaked out other, hostile nations.
What exactly do you mean by "after the Iraqi war?? Are you implying that the war is over just because Shrub sdaid it was? Consider this: more US soldiers have been killed since Shrtub announced that victory had been achieved then during combat. That’s pretty clear to me that the war ain’t even close to being over.
What’s your point?
His point is that the war is not over… 
The US might be “safer” but more due to heavy security schemes and restriction of travel of all sorts. The Iraq Invasion only increases the chances of attacks overall.
As far as winning hearts and minds before Iraq; While I don’t think attacking Iraq helped, I also don’t believe we would have won any new friends by not attacking Iraq either. War was declared on September 11, 2001 and this is just a new operational theater of it. Granted we have lost more soldiers now since the end of “organized” hostilities and we will continue to lose people.
The one thing though is the casualties are happening there and not here in the US. Bush by his actions has carried the war to the enemy and forced them to fight on their soil. If you prefer, we could withdraw all our forces and prepare to be invaded and attacked here in our homes. Which would you prefer? The war in Iraq although unpoplular has one beneficial result.
It has acted as a becon to draw the anti-american forces into an area where the US general population is not at risk. If there were no conflict in Iraq now the same anti-US forces would be busy trying to figure out how to get to the US and begin the offensive here amid civilians.
Soldiers are there to fight and sometimes die defending our interests. While this may not be popular with elements of the general public I’m sure it would be preferred by them if the alternative was fighting on our own land. War in itself is an unpopular event with everyone whether they are directly or indirectly involved.
What kind of uproar would ensue if enemy forces had landed in Los Angeles, mixed into the general population and began a guerrillia war like what we have now in Iraq? The non-combatant casualties would be our own citizenry. Would the president be any more to blame because he let this happen by not taking the conflict to the enemy?
The war is going to continue whether we agree with it or not. It will only end when one side is either anihalated or unable to fight anymore. Most likely the former will be the dictate of the end of hostilities. Please remember WWII lasted for about 8 years and we did not get into it until the end of the 4th year because of a similar spectacular event as 9/11. For those who can’t remember it was Pearl Harbor.
The “lightning rod” theory… seen that one a lot around here and its always bashed into senselessness.
I sincerely doubt a guy planning on flying some more planes into the white house will "suddenly" think that he should run to Iraq and attack US troops there instead of hitting the "homeland". It's more a case of shoestring terrorism being way easier now... you dont even have to get thru the horrible lines in airports to kill americans... you just need to go to nearby Iraq for some terrorist Disneyland.Precisely my point. Why go to the trouble of ingressing the US border and then coming up with a scheme and actually pulling it off if you can kill americans in Iraq? BUT, the Americans in Iraq are at least heavily armed and can shoot back!
And how many more planes have you seen crashing into buildings lately? I’m thinking they might have struck upon another way here. Strap a bomb on a poor sap and tell him to go do something or else get blown up.
We go into the imaginary world bar and punch the guy in the face that “might” be a threat to us. I wonder if we’ll make friends there…
You are making an implicit assumption here, that somehow the people attacking us in Iraq would be otherwise attacking us on our own soil. How likely is it that the guys doing the driveby shootings or the UN bombings would be willing and able to do it in the United States, given that it’s a much stronger target? Almost certainly, this sets the bar much lower, so far more terrorists can participate.
Secondly, any group with the ability and resources to launch another attack on the United States would almost certainly do so. It sends a certain message, and would more than likely help to kick us out of Iraq even sooner.
Contrary to your apparent assumption, planes crashing into buildings wasn’t exactly a regular occurance before the war in Iraq. It happened once, and it took years of planning. Mightnt there be a DIFFERENT reason other than the war?
WHAT?!!!
The so-called “War On Terror” was fought against the Taliban in Afghanistan, due to (now pretty much indisputed) intelligence that they harboured Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, who the same intelligence says flew those planes into the WTC.
The recent war on Iraq was waged on (still pretty much disputed) intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not involved in terror, nor had it threatened such. War on Iraq was never part of the “War On Terror”.
There is no link between the two whatsoever.
Of course, you are technically correct. However:
That a poll can give such a crazy result is thanks to the lies and twists by the US government, very good staged and selled by the propaganda machine in well thought portions and doses on strategical moments.
This couldn’t be done however if the US public wasn’t so lazy and wasn’t so very much conditioned to swallow all of that, and to follow like sheeps what “The President” declares to be right.
I’ve heard US’ers argue that
“It must be true because the President said so and the President is informed about all those things we don’t know”
or even more easy for the lazy mind:
“it must be true because it was on TV”.
hm…
?
Salaam. A
Forgot: We see on this very topic already members who are convinced that Iraq had and has everything to do with terrorism.
Very funny to witness…
Yet for the thousands of Iraqi people murdered and mutilated by the US president and government with your applaud and support, it isn’t that funny at all.
Salaam. A
This topic was done less than 3 weeks ago…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=206455&highlight=iraq+safer
If you can’t figure it out, that’s your own damn problem, 'cause it’s clear to everyone else.
squink - I get you, however Bush’s speech was utterly specious. Having found so far zero WMDs, or any evidence of them, he “repackaged” the war after his “victory”. And yes - many Americans - including [s]SunTzu** it would appear - fell for it.
I think it means more than you know.
The OP asked, “Are we safer after the war with Iraq?” and you answered, “The war is not finished.” I agree wholeheartedly.
But, you’re begging the question.