posted
The question isn't "Is the world safe?" nor "Is the world safer now than it was 2 years ago?"
The right questions are "Is the world safer now than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq?" and "Will the world be safer 3 years from now than it would be had we not invaded Iraq?"
Anecdotal evidence does NOTHING to answer these questions either way.
posted
Who knows? It's my personal opinion that we should have left Iraq alone and focused more on catching bin Laden. That they should have excercised more control over people operating prisons in Iraq. These are the sort of things that can cause trouble months, years down the line... And how safe can things be with civilians getting kicknapped on a regular basis?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is safer...as long as we vote for Dubya. It has been proven by Cheney that if we vote for anyone but Bush, we WILL be attacked again. Isn't that enough? I mean really? Isn't that enough??
quote:No, when it's clear how the war turns out
The war is over. Bush declared victory and an end to combat operations last year. This isn't the war in Iraq, this is the...er...follow up to the war in Iraq.
We have transformed an evil secular government into a potentially radical theocratic haven ruled by gangs and a slathering of anarchy. Sure, they have power now and running water. And craploads of AK-47's and rocket launchers. Wheee!!
Can't cut and run, though. It took Nixon to get us out of Johnson's 'Nam so it will probably take a democrat to get us out of a republican Iraq. As long as Bush is in power, we will have a large troop presence in Iraq with no end in sight for the fighting. Are we going to really allow a "democratic" election in January of 05 or whatever start date was set? If it elects someone who is Pro-USA we will but if they vote for a radical cleric who wants to kill everyone in the US...well, what then?
posted
Honestly, Iraq is a quagmire and I'm not sure this wasn't exactly how it was planned out.
Al Qaeda and other groups who wish to strike out at the US now have viable targets in their own back yards and can make something of a claim that they are defending the holy territory of Islam.
Fighters who were coming to the Jihad banner now can simply scoot across the porous borders of Iraq from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran (not many are making it through Turkey and the Kurds it appears so far).
But, in short, don't you think that in some way, the US administration was hoping this would happen? We make bold declarations of what we want to see in Iraq, but then only casually engage the Sadr supporters in one city and have allowed Al-Zarqawi's group to establish itself in the capital, Baghdad.
Why haven't we simply put boots and treads to the streets and taken the fight to them with an eye on wiping out this opposition? It's simple: we can take out and occupy the radical Muslim elements as they filter in to these hotspots. The Jihadists are being drawn like flies to honey around the holy mosques and decrepit cities. Their attacks harm mainly the Iraqis, US soldiers and small numbers of foreign workers (no matter how terrible the reports are, the numbers of these deaths, grisly as they are, are small in comparison).
Basically, the US was able to shift the war on terror into the Muslim back yard, rather than upon our own shores. Three years now without a noticeable attack on US soil.
I argue that neither Bush nor Kerry has any desire to change this situation, at least until a "critical mass" of Jihadists has come together in Baghdad and Falujah. The trigger for this will probably be when the Jihadists attempt to move from assassination of individual members of the Iraqi governing council, to some kind of massive assault on the government there. Perhaps a storming of the capital, or an attack on the parlaiment. In other words, something that makes a push for the civil war the CIA is warning of.
Once that civil war begins, the US can use it as a perfect excuse to go on the offensive again.
It's a jiu-jitsu strategy that will probably work, but it still leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. There are innocent people in Iraq, forgotten and victimized yet again. These are the folks that get killed by the car bombs. These are the ones killed in mortar attacks on market places.
These are the ones we promised would have a better, safer life.
This is becoming a war of attrition, but I feel that the two warring sides aren't the ones being abraded away, but the folks who are caught in the middle. Both sides claim that they are fighting on behalf of those caught in the middle. But as this wears on, those in the middle are wearing away and shuffling off this mortal coil.
When it comes to the end, will there be anyone left for the victor to hand the reins to?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you are saying the Bush administration WANTED Iraq to collapse into anarchy? If so, that should be reason enough to vote them out. It would mean they (1)lied to us point blank about what they hoped to achieve in Iraq, (2)think it's okay to ruin the Iraqi people for our own purposes, and (3)have no idea what it would take to stop terrorism. After all, it seems likely that for every one terrorist that travels to Iraq, two more are created from the anger over the fighting. After every successful attack in Iraq, of which there are many, Al Qaeda gets a boost in confidence. And given what the experts are saying, this war is only making the terrorists MORE organized and MORE capable of hitting their targets. To think they wouldn't take that expertise over to America after Iraq is just a mistake.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When remembering how the war went we can really be happy there weren´t any WMD´s.
Imagine all the weapons and ammo storages that were unguarded for a long time after the official war.
If there would have been WMD´s there would not only be shooting and bombing as there is now but frequent attacks with various chemicals.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a nutshell, yep, that's what I am saying.
1) "lied to us point blank about what they hoped to achieve in Iraq?"
You're surprised at this late date that we have been lied to?
2) "think it's okay to ruin the Iraqi people for our own purposes?"
It's not what I necessarily think, but I do believe that both Bush and Kerry feel that it's better them than us.
3) "have no idea what it takes to stop terrorism"
Doesn't seem that anyone has the key to that particular lock. Especially when terrorism has become such a big umbrella.
Lastly, I've always been a bit dubious about "experts." Remember that it was "experts" who said that Al Qaeda wasn't an immediate threat in August of 2001. "Experts" also agreed that Saddam probably had WMDs.
CBS probably even had their own "experts" go over the Bush service documents, but they missed something pretty simple.
Our problem is that we no longer know how to tell experts from those who simply postulate. From our government to our media, such little emphasis is placed on veracity nowadays that we really don't know who to believe.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
