Iraq war worth the cost?

TimCallahan said:
It would be disingenuous to assert that Bush didn't know that saying Iraq had WMD's would make most Americans see this as nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I would disagree - Most Americans would consider it unlikely. If Iraq had anything nuclear, Israel would have slagged the place
 
MG1962 said:
Which is why third party interventions rarely succeed if ever
Click to expand...

It did succeed. It's a democracy with an economic boom and not a genocidal fascist regime under international sanctions.
 
Virus said:
It did succeed. It's a democracy with an economic boom and not a genocidal fascist regime under international sanctions.
Click to expand...

Yes 5 years of democracy all under the stewardship of US military forces. Lets see what the future brings
 
MG1962 said:
Yes 5 years of democracy all under the stewardship of US military forces. Lets see what the future brings
Click to expand...

What do you think it's future would have been under a genocidal fascist rogue state? Good?
 
I think Iraq has taught us how to not to look at our (I don't just mean the US) actions in the world as a battle of good versus evil. Instead, as the Sunni-Shia civil war taught us, our world is a pluralistic one, where the 'good' often fails to flourish once the 'evil' has been vanquished. Part of the reason there seems to be a reluctance to intervene in Syria and Iran is due to the lessons of Iraq, where we now look at the prospect of overthrowing Assad or the Ayatollah as one that has the possibility to cause multiple problems currently unforeseen.

I think historians will look back on Iraq as one of good intentions, but one based on emotion, failing utterly to look beyond the desirable prospect of getting rid of Saddam.

I also hope they can talk about a flourishing Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Total waste.

Who here wouldnt go back and time and try to stop that mess. Just the finances alone are staggering. Talk about a money pit! I doubt that $800 bill takes into account the ongoing costs of the injured and familes of the dead.
 
Virus said:
The elections have been free and fair. How many elections were judged free and fair under Saddam?

You lose. Hard.
Click to expand...

Refer post #64 - I am really not interested in arguing in circles with you
 
TimCallahan said:
On the other hand, Saddam was a horrible dictator, and he perpetrated a genocidal policy toward the Kurds. In addition, in order to suppress the swamp Arabs
Click to expand...

The Marsh Arabs.

TimCallahan said:
As to the national unity of Iraq, the place is an artificial nation. Let it split apart. Logic and justice would dictate that we recognize a Kurdish state. The Kurds are a separate nationality, speaking an Indo-Europen language, rather than speaking Arabic. They were there before the Arabs invaded Mesopotamia, just as they were there long before the Turks invaded Asia Minor. They have a right to their own country. However, were we to recognize an independent state of Kurdistan, we would alienate the Turks, just as we would alienate them by insisting on the reality of the Armenian Holocaust, perpetrated by the Turks.
Click to expand...

perpetrated by the Turks and the Kurds.
 
MG1962 said:
I would disagree - Most Americans would consider it unlikely. If Iraq had anything nuclear, Israel would have slagged the place
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear complex in the 1980s because they were sure the reactors there were being used to produce plutonium. Thus, it's not inconceivable that Americans could be misled to think of nukes when Bush mentioned WMDs. However, let's say for the sake of argument, that I'm all wet on interpreting WMDs as nukes in Bush's parlance. Bush still lied to the American public that Iraq was a major military thread and strongly implied Saddam had links to Al Qaeda.
 
DGM said:
Who are you trying to convince? Why did you say "AKA nukes"? Did the US ever say they had "nukes" or were you just trying to pad your hand?
Click to expand...

Looking up Iraqi nuclear weapons, I found this site, which mentions Cheney asserting that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

ETA: Following up on the first site I found this transcript of Cheney's interview on "Meet the Press." Consider, specifically, this statement by Cheney (emphasis added):

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.

So, is this enough to convince you that the Bush administration was using the specter of Iraq having nuclear weapons as a rationale for invading Iraq?

ETA #2: Here's another quote from the "Meet the Press" interview" in which Cheney uses the WMD issue as reason to attack Iraq:

MR. RUSSERT: . . . What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
To those who profit from the invasion, occupation, destruction and reconstruction of Iraq, it is well worth the cost (a cost that they don't have to pay).

Otherwise, no. It's a disaster of epic proportions. What a *********** waste!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom