The Iraq war is distracting terrorists and making the US safer

Great Debates
21

Yeah…that’s the same story I linked to. It is interesting but it doesn’t really answer the question in my mind as to whether you have al Qaeda pouring significant resources and people into Iraq or whether you have people who are looking to commit these terrorist acts and are turning to some literature and videos from al Qaeda for inspiration. I guess if they had a way of tracing where the weapons themselves came from, they might get a better idea.

The one thing I had missed on my first look at that story is the implication that the info on that cache may have come from interogations of Saddam himself.

22

My guess is that this article must be as accurate as all the articles about "YESSS… We have found the WMD!! "

Salaam. A

23

Jesus Christ, John Lott really is a piece of work, isn’t he? Aren’t you guys the least bit ashamed that he’s on your side?

24

Hey, that’s why I thought it was important to find and post an opposing viewpoint. Lott’s conclusions seem awfully fishy to me.

I’m starting to think of Lott as the Krugman of the right. Someone who once did good work, but has let his status as the darling of his side warp and twist him into a partisan spinner instead of a solid academic.

25

Before ending the hijack, I will say that the blog you linked to for the rebuttal is all kinds of entertaining, if you have any interest in Lott and his, um, scholarship. Thanks for that one.

26

“Scholarship”. Oh, you are a droll one, Mr. Green

27

Idiotic comment, since Lott was never anything more than a partisan spinner, and since Krugman’s never been less than a solid academic. But nice “poisoning the well” technique. A suspicious mind (like mine) might think you cited Lott just so you could slight Krugman by making that comparison.

28

ok so I looked at the previous thread I think John Mace alluded to. Basically nobody seems to be willing to back this BS up. That’s starting to be my conclusion from this thread too.

29

If it is making us safer…

Why are we under Orange alert?
Why are we escorting and turning back airline flights?
Why were armed helicopters and rooftop snipers watching the new years festivities last night?

Yep…we are safer.

:rolleyes:

30

The idea that we are safer holds as much water as the idea that we are less safe, another idea touted by the anti-war crowd as fact.

There is little in the way of definitive evidence one way or another, so anyone making assertions one way or the other is doing it from personal belief, not from any reasoned analysis of the evidence.

31

Which of course leads us to the question: For all the money we are spending on the war in Iraq, could we not have spent that money on something else that would have unambiguously made us safer … or at least that would have unambiguously not made us less safe?

32

The administration line is this: The Middle East is a hornet’s nest for terrorists. Dealing with the situation by swatting individual hornets as they come to sting you might help improve the symptoms temporarily, but unless you get rid of the nest, you’re going to have to keep doing so forever. And in a world where weapons are getting increasingly powerful and increasingly easy to come by, this situation is bound to end in disaster.

So the administration has decided to get rid of the nest. Conditions for Arabs needs to be improved. The dictatorships have to go or reform, the Palestinian situation needs to be resolved, and the people of the middle east need to be turned into allies instead of enemies.

This is where Iraq fits in. With a crazy dictator in the middle of the problem, throwing money to Palestinian suicide bombers, firing missiles at Israel, invading his neighbors, and inciting Arabs to hatred of the west, the problem was intractable. But get rid of Saddam and replace him with a democracy, and you can win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and remove the need for Saddam’s neighbors to build their own WMD.

Iran is another problem of the same scale as Saddam, with their heavy funding of Hezbollah and constant inciting of hatred against the west. But the U.S. is taking a very different tack with Iran, because it sees the potential for peaceful change. For example, the U.S. immediately offered large amounts of humanitarian assistance after the Earthquake, and breaking news yesterday is that the Bush administration has offered to send a delegation to Iran consisting of Elizabeth Dole and an unspecified Bush family member.

Also, the U.S. in Iraq did something very important for Iran - They disarmed MEK, which was a resistance group working against the Iranian government from within Iraq. As I understand it, the U.S. has actually worked with this group before, but now they have disarmed them and declared them a terrorist organization. This seems to me to be an overture to the Iranian government.

So that’s the ‘root cause’ argument. Get rid of the root cause, and you have a chance to actually win the war on terror. Let the Middle East fester and turn the war into a policing issue of swatting the individual terrorists, and the problem never goes away.

Seems reaasonable to me.

33

What seems reasonable to mee is putting all mass murderers and war criminals and common criminals on trial.

But of course that would include the current US president and the whole lot of his supportive administration. And if would even include all those who support there mass murdering “policy”.

Salaam. A

34

Give it a rest Alderbaran, we’re the lesser of two evils.

35

Who is “we” Ryan?

Salaam. A

36

He’s talking about the little Tony Blair dog that’s chasing after the big GW dog like in those old Warner Brothers cartoons. “Ooh, George! George! Who’re we conquerin’ today, George?! Who’re we conquerin’ today?! (aside to the audience) I like George! He’s TOUGH!”

37

Ok and what does this have to do with Iraq?

So without Saddam, people in the middle east won’t hate the west?? Without Saddamm there will be no Palistinean sucide bombers?? I don’t get it.

That’s a big fat maybe (I’ll believe when I see it) but what does that have to do with making the US safer? Iraq as far as we know, doesn’t seem to have a large stockpile of WMD or really been a factor in others needing to build WMD. Furthermore, it’s terrorism that most US’ians are worried about and Saddam’s role seems to be insignificant in that regard.

Except you haven’t really explained what the root cause is exactly, or why removing Saddam was the best way to go after it.

If you could explicitly restate the OP to suit your theory, that might help the discussion.

38

I’d say the US soldiers dying almost daily is a pretty good evidence that US citizens are less safe.

39

Which of course leads us to the question: For all the money we are spending on the war in Iraq, could we not have spent that money on something else that would have unambiguously made us safer … or at least that would have unambiguously not made us less safe?

Well, one thing that wouldn’t help much, but that many anti-war people keep on spouting, is that we should spend that money on homeland security. In other words, play strictly defense. All that accomplishes is to delay the inevitable. You cannot win a war unless you defeat the enemy. It would be like fighting Nazi Germany and Japan by keeping our troops at home and just parrying whatever attacks they made. We’d still be fighting today if we’d tried that strategy.

Did invading Iraq make us safer? I think it did in the long term. I happen to buy the theory that the only way to substantially reduce terrorism is to reform the Middle East, and Iraq, for a variety of reasons, was the best target by far.

I do think the invasion of Afghanistan made us safer almost immediately. The sharp reduction in successful terror attacks in 2002 bears that out, although there are of course other factors affecting that, like increased homeland security efforts, Israels’ offensive in the Occupied Territories, and the fact that every nation in the world is now an enemy of Al Qaeda and arresting them left and right. But I think the most important reason for the decline in terrorism in 2002 was the disruption of Al Qaeda because of that invasion, and forcing them to concentrate their resources on their own defense rather than to offensive operations in the US.

**I’d say the US soldiers dying almost daily is a pretty good evidence that US citizens are less safe.
**

Were Americans safer in 1944 than they were in 1942?

And how many Americans died in 2001 compared to 2002 and 2003?

Not that this means much, but it shows the folly of grabbing one piece of evidence and presenting it as indicative of the overall terror situation.

40

Yeah, Saddam was an easy target. What does that have to do with US safety?

Well, where’s some counter evidence? I mean, is there any? Put it on the table. What other part other part of the “overall terror situation” really warrants the same attention?

It’s not as if people dying is some random statistic grabbed arbitrarily. And it’s not as if the war in Iraq can’t be viewed as the direct result of those deaths. The connection is crystal clear.

We know without any shadow of a doubt that US citizens are dying from terrorist attacks and guerilla warfare in Iraq almost every day! Yet somehow, we’re safer??? How???

Now it’s nice of you to put forth your theories about how it’s supposed to prevent or cure terrorism. But I’d like some evidence thank you very much.