What GOOD will come out of the Iraq war?

Hmm … I’m at a loss here, I can’t think of anything.

Gigantic boom for Iraqi construction workers.

Opportunities for Iraqi construction workers.
Great profits for local arms and ammunition dealers, and subsequent profits for the weapons manufacturers.
Benefit to the persons in the best position to benefit from the economic shift due to general chaos (black marketeers, and so on).
And from what I hear, Al-Qaida is having a field day.

I think that Saddam and his sons being out of power is a great thing.

Iraq purged almost all of those pesky (how did you put it?) “people no one could tolerate” by the early 70’s. Maybe a few of them will be allowed back.

Haj

A steady source of material for anti-semitic assholes to bitch about.

Iraq can now have an Olympic team without having to worry about being tortured if the team loses.

No more gassing of Kurds.

It’s a good thing.

You need to try harder. Just off the top of my head:

[ul]
[li]Freedom for millions of people. I don’t know about you, but I consider this a good thing.[/li]
[li]The elimination of a tyrant who was constantly stirring up shit in the middle east. Saddam was attempting to ‘legitimize’ his regime by ratcheting up rhetoric against Israel, paying money to suicide bombers, giving sanctuary to terrorists, and moving towards a more radical Islamist posture. He was a festering boil on a very troubled region. [/li]
[li]Improvement of the economy of Iraq. If the country holds together (and this is still an IF), in ten years it is going to have a vibrant economy that puts its neighbors to shame. That sends a powerful message to those who think that dictatorship and ‘strong men’ are the answer for Middle East government (and a surprising number of Arabs believe this).[/li]
[li]Pressure on neighboring dictatorships. There have already been demonstrations and outright rebellions in Syria, especially in the Kurdish regions. If Iraq is successful, you’re going to see a big increase in this. [/li]
[li]Iraq was a good object lesson. How’s this for a big benefit right out of the gate: Libya finally gives up and turns over all the details of its WMD programs. Inspectors going through the material find links to a Pakistani scientist. They follow the links back and uncover details of nuclear secrets being sold to several countries. As a result, this potentially devastating pipeline is now closed.[/li]
[li]Exposure of corruption in the U.N.'s oil for food program. This story is still breaking, but the more we discover about it the more we’re realizing just how corrupt this program was. Hopefully, with solid hearings we’ll eventually clean up this mess, and the people responsible will be held accountable.[/li]
[li]Saving Iraqi lives. What happened to the left’s denunciation of the trade embargo on Iraq? They used to claim that hundreds of thousands of children were dying because of lack of access to medicines, treatment, and food. Well, they are getting all that now. In addition, even outside of his wars, Saddam was killing an average of somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Iraqis a year (just going by the number of bodies estimated to be in mass graves, divided by the number of years he was in power). This means there are more people alive in Iraq today than there would have been if there were no war.[/li]
[li]U.S. credibility in future negotiations with other bad actors. Strong diplomacy works better than diplomacy which carries no real consequences. The lesson of Iraq will weigh heavily on other rogue nations when it comes time to negotiate with the United States.[/li]
[li]Eimination of the need to base military operations in Saudi Arabia. This was one of Bin Laden’s main objections in his 1998 Fatwa. In addition, the need to curry favor with Saudi Arabia meant that the U.S. had its hands tied somewhat in cracking down on the Saudis over things like terrorist financing, opening Wahhabist schools around the world, etc. [/li]
[li]Elimination of the no-fly zones. These cost something like 20-30 billion dollars a year to maintain, and were a constant source of friction in the Middle East. Stopping them while leaving Saddam in power would have resulted in genocide in the Kurdish region of Iraq. This was an unstable long-term situation.[/li]
[li]The ability to maintain a large force presence in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. For the U.S. to go after terrorists in the middle east, it needs a forward operating base. Iraq suits that need perfectly. Also, having a large ground force right in the heart of the middle east will act as a check against aggression by other countries.[/li]
[li]The environment. Saddam created an ecological disaster when he drained the marshes to punish the marsh arabs. Not only did he destroy a culture that had existed for a very long time, but he destroyed the ecosystem as well. Those marshes are now being refilled, and that ancient culture is being revived, along with the ecosystem it depends on. [/li][/ul]

You know, there are valid reasons to oppose that war. If you want to argue that the bad outweighs the good, that’s fine. But to deny that anything good came out of it is just silly.

And what did this all have to do with us? hhmmmmmm :smiley:

Well, since we’re alll dependent on Middle East oil, and seeing as how the Middle East is the hornet’s nest that spits out the terrorists trying to kill us all, I’d say quite a lot, hmmnnnn?
:smiley:

The U.S. might gain WMD’s to use on other countries, or oil to fuel the weapons to use on other countries.

:rolleyes:

You might want to read this article from today’s newspaper No Saddam Northern Iraqis relish living their lives without fear of persecution then try thinking again.

I’m hoping one good thing that comes out of it (and the lies the administration told about it) is the consignment of GWB to being a one-term president.

All good points Sam Stone, that is assuming if the bombs quit exploding there sometime in the future, and that’s a big IF.

Good post, Sam Stone.

Since the Iraq war, we’ve already seen Libya renounce its WMD programs, and Iran allowing international inspection of its nucelar programs.

OK, this poll puts a positive spin on things.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Freedom for millions of people. I don’t know about you, but I consider this a good thing.
(maybe, so far they haven’t seen any of that freedom)

The elimination of a tyrant who was constantly stirring up shit in the middle east. Saddam was attempting to ‘legitimize’ his regime by ratcheting up rhetoric against Israel, paying money to suicide bombers, giving sanctuary to terrorists, and moving towards a more radical Islamist posture. He was a festering boil on a very troubled region.
(not really true. Saddam has had very little influence in the region since the first Gulf war and the initiation of the sanctions. They paid money to the families of those that died in actions against israel whether suicide bomber or innocent victim, This is also something done by Saudi Arabia, Iran and other islamic countries. The “giving sanctuary” is also misleading. The one person we claim they gave sanction to was not actually wanted by any other country and had been essentially pardoned for his terrorist activities. Moving toward a more radical islam? NOt hardly, Saddam has fought such moves his entire career in Iraq. He did shortly before the war started begin to use some religious rhetoric to inspire Iraqis to defend their country, but hardly an attempt to radicalize Iraq.)
Improvement of the economy of Iraq. If the country holds together (and this is still an IF), in ten years it is going to have a vibrant economy that puts its neighbors to shame. That sends a powerful message to those who think that dictatorship and ‘strong men’ are the answer for Middle East government (and a surprising number of Arabs believe this).
(Those dictatorship/strong me in middle east governments have largly been installed, supported and catered to by the U.S. for decades. In fact if history of US actions in the area is any indicator, Democracy is not something we encourage and as shown in Haiti and elsewhere, we have no apparent hesitation to damage.
The history of US support has shown a willingness to allow a few to greatly profit over the needs of the many. You also seem to be unaware of how many people in Iraq actually doing rebuilding work are foreign nationals not Iraqis. Forgive me if I maintain doubts…)

Pressure on neighboring dictatorships. There have already been demonstrations and outright rebellions in Syria, especially in the Kurdish regions. If Iraq is successful, you’re going to see a big increase in this.
(pressure? Try direct threats, which has enflamed a lot more of the middle east against us not turned them into willing sheep. Have you been paying ANY attention to the news?)
Iraq was a good object lesson. How’s this for a big benefit right out of the gate: Libya finally gives up and turns over all the details of its WMD programs. Inspectors going through the material find links to a Pakistani scientist. They follow the links back and uncover details of nuclear secrets being sold to several countries. As a result, this potentially devastating pipeline is now closed.
(your order of events is a bit skewed, The discovery of the pakistani nuclear secrets issue is what led to Libya coming clean, not the other way around.)

Exposure of corruption in the U.N.'s oil for food program. This story is still breaking, but the more we discover about it the more we’re realizing just how corrupt this program was. Hopefully, with solid hearings we’ll eventually clean up this mess, and the people responsible will be held accountable.
(This could be good, but I doubt the US is going to come out smelling daisy fresh from this issue either.)

Saving Iraqi lives. What happened to the left’s denunciation of the trade embargo on Iraq? They used to claim that hundreds of thousands of children were dying because of lack of access to medicines, treatment, and food. Well, they are getting all that now. In addition, even outside of his wars, Saddam was killing an average of somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Iraqis a year (just going by the number of bodies estimated to be in mass graves, divided by the number of years he was in power). This means there are more people alive in Iraq today than there would have been if there were no war.
(First of all it wasn’t “the lefts denunciation” those estimates came from several world organizations that had nothing to do with american political leanings. I suppose it seems good to you to have spread the death around more equally to other sections of the Iraqi population but there has hardly been any decline in death. Your 10-30,000 Iraqis a year estimate are just so much unsupported puffery. In fact a good number of those in the mass graves you describe were victims of the Iran-Iraq war, The Gulf war, and the Shia uprisings after the gulf war. Most of Saddams victims for that matter were those directly opposing his regime not the average Iraqi, and those people are now falling victim to US defenders along with other segments of Iraqis that were not previously subject to such tragedy.
The current estimate for total Iraqi deaths since the start of this stupidity last year is approaching 50,000 dead Iraqis. I bet they feel much better now that EVERYONE is a potential target.)

U.S. credibility in future negotiations with other bad actors. Strong diplomacy works better than diplomacy which carries no real consequences. The lesson of Iraq will weigh heavily on other rogue nations when it comes time to negotiate with the United States.
(It seems to me that what we have shown the world is that treaties, morality, and world opinion mean little to the U.S. and that any failure to please the US could bring reprisals that ignore international law.)
Eimination of the need to base military operations in Saudi Arabia. This was one of Bin Laden’s main objections in his 1998 Fatwa. In addition, the need to curry favor with Saudi Arabia meant that the U.S. had its hands tied somewhat in cracking down on the Saudis over things like terrorist financing, opening Wahhabist schools around the world, etc.
(moving our bases from the holiest area of Islam to the SECOND holiest area of Islam is not going to bring many smiles. This administration has shown also that they have no intention or desire to “crack down on the Saudis”.)
Elimination of the no-fly zones. These cost something like 20-30 billion dollars a year to maintain, and were a constant source of friction in the Middle East. Stopping them while leaving Saddam in power would have resulted in genocide in the Kurdish region of Iraq. This was an unstable long-term situation.
(I believe your cost numbers are skewed by abut a factor of TEN. Not to mention that the sanctions have been shown to have worked and been effective. The no-fly zones also have been largly unimportant since 1993. They did not even slow down the draining of the marshes you referenced further on.)

The ability to maintain a large force presence in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. For the U.S. to go after terrorists in the middle east, it needs a forward operating base. Iraq suits that need perfectly. Also, having a large ground force right in the heart of the middle east will act as a check against aggression by other countries.
(Didn’t we already have that essentially in afghanistan, along with a few other of the ‘stans’ that have become hosts for our forces. Also a large ground force is not a check against aggression by other countries. The no-fly zones would have done that much. A large Ground force is something you use to occupy ground not necessarily to defend it.)

The environment. Saddam created an ecological disaster when he drained the marshes to punish the marsh arabs. Not only did he destroy a culture that had existed for a very long time, but he destroyed the ecosystem as well. Those marshes are now being refilled, and that ancient culture is being revived, along with the ecosystem it depends on.
(that may be the plan but to say it is being done already is a bit misleading. You also fail to mention the failure to restore power and water at the levels they were befoer the warlet alone any improvements.)

Hmmm, you might want to recent citizen polls Iraqi published (referenced above by ccwaterback)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/worl...oll_040314.html
Plus an article in today’s newspaper
http://pjstar.com/news/topnews/b2ige1kb011.html

I’d like to see a cite on your last statement. It may very well be true. I would suspect that Saddam would rather import skilled labor than to train his own citizens.

Seems like our actions have garnered results in Pakistan, Iran & Libya. Syria has been threatened, justifiably.

Cite?
The Libya deal had been in the works for some time. It hinged more on the settlement for the PanAm bombing than anything else.

Your reasoning is? France, Germany & Russia are the ones that have concerns about what will be learned in this investigation.

You should really try getting your information from a variety of sources.

Thanks to our current policies we now have a working relationship with Pakistan which Clinton was never able to accomplish.

Effective cracking down on the Saudis will require our getting off the oil barrel they have us bent over first (unless you want to pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas).

Not sure what effect the no-fly zone was supposed to have on Saddam draining marshes.

I don’t think there is any doubt that a ground force will be stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future, but it will be there for stability within Iraq, not for a forward operating base against terrorist in other locations. As for your last sentence, WTF?

Again, you need to read the some of the stories coming out of Iraq pertaining to rebuilding.

Saddam was evil. One of the few people you could compare to a Nazi without invoking Godwin’s Law. So eliminating him and his regime was a good thing.

There are other potential benefits. Iraq might become a stable country. The example of what happened to Saddam might lead other dictators to reform. The demonstration of American military power might avoid some future military conflict. All of these obviously are hypothetical at this point.

As for the idea that it’s a possible benefit that the United States will be indefinitely maintaining a military presense in Iraq - well, I’d have to put that in the debit column.

Please note the graphs.

You might want to read some of the many blogs from Iraqis themselves:

http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://www.healingiraq.com/