Iraq war worth the cost?

TimCallahan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no disagreement with you on that point!
 
Was it worth it? Let's ask the Iraqi deputy Prime Minister about the state of his country:
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was "shocked" to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq." He said Washington is leaving Iraq "with a dictator" who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks.
"America left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said. "People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster. Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."
[...]
But quitting the government carries the risk of being branded as terrorists and arrested, he said.
Click to expand...
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/meast/iraq-maliki/

When the Deputy Prime Minister says things like that, you know the country is in a terrible state.

So Maliki becomes Saddam 2.0, and as long as he doesn't make the mistake to invade Kuwait the US remains as happy with him as they were with Saddam in the 80's.

Here's a thought: Wouldn't it have been easier after kicking Saddam out of Kuwait to forgive him his little indiscretion and remove the sanctions and no-fly zone? Not to mention spare the 8 years of war. Since it seems the eventual outcome hasn't really changed - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The real difference between Saddam and Maliki is the Western public's awareness: Saddam rounds up 100 people and shoots them, he's a monster. Maliki rounds up 100 people and shoots them, we don't even hear about it.
 
NoahFence said:
Under America's watch.

Now that we're out, we'll see.
Click to expand...
Actually, let's apply a modicum of scepticism here.

Imagine you're in charge of stabilizing/pacifying a country that's on the brink of civil war. Some of the local factions are trying to kill you, others don't care if you live or die, a few are somewhat cooperative.
Now election time is over, and someone you can work with claims victory.

Are you going to breathe a sigh of relief that he won? Or are you going to scrutinize the validity of his claim, with the potential prospect of causing more tensions and perhaps even helping someone who hates your guts to power?

The US was too dependent on success of the Iraqi elections to be credible as an impartial observer: It's impossible to tell if the elections really were fair.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone think of a better way to spend trillions of dollars than killing tens of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands)?
 
Cain said:
Can anyone think of a better way to spend trillions of dollars than killing tens of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands)?
Click to expand...

Terrorist's fault.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, DGM, do you have a response to this post? Or am I still trying pad my hand?
 
TimCallahan said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, DGM, I guess this ends our argument.
 
Cain said:
Can anyone think of a better way to spend trillions of dollars than killing tens of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands)?
Click to expand...

Population of earth: ~ 7 billion
cost of Iraq war: ~ $3 trillion
= $428 per person

Cost of 1 dozen donuts: ~ 5 dollars

instead of Iraq we could have bought every man, woman and child on face of the earth 85 dozen donuts.
 
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. That's one great problem of getting stuck in Mideast quagmires: There's practically no way to disengage in a way that results in just solution.
Click to expand...

While I find a lot to agree about with your sentiments there, what happens in a fracturing Iraq (when, not if) won't happen in a vacuum. As (not yet Senator) James Webb predicted back in 2002, the US and friends kicking Saddam out does our favorite nemisis in the Mid East, Iran, a huge favor, a strategic choice that was questionable then and moreso now.

I don't know how much the unrest in Iraq fed the Arab Spring: at all, a little, a bit, a lot, none? Difficult to say.

I'm cynical enough to suggest that a coalition of the interested will lend support and arms to the Sunni resistance to the soon to be oppressive Shia majority ... in the interest of considering who potential allies versus Iran may be in the ME ... mostly found among nominally Sunni Muslim nations. Whether or not the US joins into the under the table coalition will inform its relationships with any number of Sunni majority states in the region.

I see nothing but bad news for the folks in Iraq in the near term.

Sorry, but it isn't even close to over.

I note that American troops were in Bosnia/Former Yugoslavie up to about fourteen years after our initial involvement there.

Iraq is in a rawer, more complex region than Bosnia.

Blood will keep on spilling. We just won't be doing as much of the shedding for a while.

You could say that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were fertilized by the bullets of Viet Nam ... so perhaps the killing hills and plains of Iraq have been well fertilized in the past eight years of preparation for their own experiment with democracy.

Unlike the US and its initial experimental steps, the folks in Iraq won't have an ocean to separate them from those wishing to interfere in that experiment.

How do you say "this is gonna suck" in Arabic?
 
Virus said:
Terrorist's fault.
Click to expand...

Terrorists' fault we squandered blood and treasure? Osama Bin Laden was all too happy to take credit for luring us into costly unwinnable wars. Their gift to us. Someone offers you a big wooden horse, you don't have to take it.
 
Cain said:
Terrorists' fault we squandered blood and treasure? Osama Bin Laden was all too happy to take credit for luring us into costly unwinnable wars. Their gift to us. Someone offers you a big wooden horse, you don't have to take it.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden is dead and Al-Qaeda have been crushed, having achieved absolutely nothing.

Good.
 
And of course we could not have accomplished either of those things without spending trillions of dollars in Iraq. Good one, Captain Logic.
 
My only reaction to Panetta's statement is to blink in disbelief and wonder: is Panetta that stupid, or does he think that we, the supposedly self-governing citizens of this country, are that stupid? The kindest thing I can conclude is that this is some sort of throw-away line intended to provide solace to the families of those killed, or consolation to survivors who were maimed. But that is pretty thin gruel; I imagine these people, and their kin, have formed their own opinions about what happened and do not require a patronizing justification. And, in any case, if it was “worth it,” why shouldn’t we keep doing it, not only in Iraq but all over the world? Perpetual war for stable government, one might call it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom