Originally Posted By jonvn "Sadly, because of the horrific way our "allies" handled his execution, many in the Arab world now see him that way." Yes. We managed to turn him into a hero. Good going.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Even with some amazing turnaround and total success, there's going to be one helluva bill to pay for this war. And as of now, there's no clear end in sight, so the meter is still running. There is a cost to pre-emptive wars like this, and it isn't just a financial cost. US credibility has suffered because some in this administration had convinced themselves that we'd be greeted as liberators with flowers and chocolates and such.> As I believe I said earlier, I think it's too soon to really measure the costs versus the benefits.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We managed to turn him into a hero. Good going.> I really doubt those who thought he was a villian now believe he was a hero.
Originally Posted By jonvn He is now a martyr in the arab world. He was not before. He wasn't even liked before. now he's a hero. We should have taken him out of that hole in the ground, and shot him right there. But we didn't. Instead, we created a freedom fighter out of him. Just like everything else in this "war," the handling of Saddam was screwed up.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << As I believe I said earlier, I think it's too soon to really measure the costs versus the benefits. >> Yup, let's wait until a few thousand more Americans are killed in Iraq and the U.S. economy is in shambles before we make that assessment.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I think it's too soon to really measure the costs versus the benefits. << By your own reasoning, under the best of circumstances the "benefits" would be measured in events that never occur, which is unquantifiable, which is tantamount to not existing at all. If you continue to believe that the iraqi people present a threat to the US, at some point you have to substantiate that threat in order to validate the continuation of the war. It was never done in the buildup to the iraq war, so it would be even harder to do now. So too, if you believe that terrorism can be defeated by stablizing iraq, you'd have to demonstrate some causal link. Except there is none. If you're concerned that our departure from iraq, whether it comes sooner or later, will be claimed as a "victory" by al qaeda - of course it will. It doesn't matter when we leave, these people are indiginous to the region and will remain behind. Therefore, they "win". This is only a "no win" situation for us because of the administration's complete failure to adhere to the powell doctrine - clearly defined and limited goals, an overwhelming force and an exit strategy once those goals have been achieved. Instead we jumped in with vague ideas about deposing saddam and imposing a type of jeffersonian democracy on a people that never asked for it, and apparently don't want it, and we did it without nealy the number of troops necessary, and a complete absence of any realistic planning or exit strategy. Now, nearly four years later, they're suddenly ready to "surge" in 20,000 more troops as a hail mary play. If this fails, we're out of options - this is "it". And of course all 20,000 will have to be US troops because the bush administration's handling of the war has been so inept that we have no allies left to help us - nobody else wants to get near this stinkpile of bush's - it's his alone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As I believe I said earlier, I think it's too soon to really measure the costs versus the benefits.<< Yes, I read it the first time you wrote it. It's okay to just not respond if you don't have anything to add to the point. No need to repeat.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yup, let's wait until a few thousand more Americans are killed in Iraq and the U.S. economy is in shambles before we make that assessment.> What if that doesn't happen?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So too, if you believe that terrorism can be defeated by stablizing iraq, you'd have to demonstrate some causal link. Except there is none.> Of course there is. And I also disagree with the rest of your opinions about the Iraq war.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, I read it the first time you wrote it. It's okay to just not respond if you don't have anything to add to the point. No need to repeat.> I agree, and when you begin adhering to that philosophy, I will as well.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Of course there is. << So then, your belief is that if things in iraq turn out per bush's original plan - iraq is now a bastion of democracy and self-governing free will - that defeats terrorism? There IS a causal link between iraq and terror? Please elaborate, otherwise it's just unsubstantiated pipe dreams.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I agree, and when you begin adhering to that philosophy, I will as well.<< I did expand on the point, didn't repeat myself. You should try adhering to that philosophy, too.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So then, your belief is that if things in iraq turn out per bush's original plan - iraq is now a bastion of democracy and self-governing free will - that defeats terrorism?> Defeats? No. Lessens? Yes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I did expand on the point, didn't repeat myself.> I didn't see anything new.
Originally Posted By gadzuux That presumes that iraq was a hotbed for terrorism and muslim fundamentalism during saddam's reign. I don't believe that either of those beliefs are true.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't believe that either of those beliefs are true.> Then you are ill informed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<I don't believe that either of those beliefs are true.> Then you are ill informed." Back it up. How was Iraq a hotbed for terrorism pre-9/11? Pre-invasion? A hotbed for muslim fundamentalism? The guy was a dictator, after all. He didn't tolerate much of anything.
