Sqrl said:
Iraq was never a threat? Aside from the destabilizing effect Saddam had on the entire region we know he had biological and chemical weapons. Which he used on his own people. We even know that at several points in his regime he was trying to get nukes...and yet somehow thats "ok" and not the same as actually having them. So we have a sadistic dictator who has proven he wants nuclear weapons and has shown a willingness to kill without feeling. That sounds to me like a threat...not exactly a stretch by any definition either. I don't know how most people think, but I like the idea of dealing with my enemies when they are weak rather than waiting for them to have all their ducks in a row when they will be an immediate threat. The fact that our intentions were misrepresented/wrong/whatever for going there is atotally legit complaint in my view. But that doesn't at all change the fact that there were legit reasons to go. As an example, if you were given directions by your ex-wife to a restaurant to meet a date and she lied and told you it was on the left side of the street but you found out it was really on the right side of the street at the same intersection would you turn around and go home or go eat dinner with your date who was waiting inside? You're correct to think it may have been a bad idea to ask directions from your ex and if she did lie then you have every right to be angry! But the reality of the situation is that you're outside the restaurant and you can either go home and call your ex-wife to bitch or you can go inside and have a nice evening. Going home doesn't spite your ex, it spites yourself. As for terrorism not being a threat, I will first say you are correct it took a number of years to develop the 9/11 plot, but it doesn't necessarily take that long for all plots to be hatched. With that said there actually have been a number of foiled plots since then, for example this article outlines 17 of them from Sept 11th 2001 to Jun 3rd 2007. The list includes a plan to release a dirty bomb in Miami, a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, a plot against the NY Stock Exchange, a plot to attack military facilities in the LA area, a plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago as well as FBI offices, and a planned attack on JFK International Airport. It is really easy to look at a list of foiled attacks and shrug them off but if you add up the number of people who die if they succeed it easily adds up very quickly to some staggering numbers, and of course we don't even know if there would have been more without our actions, which leads me to my next point... As for how you "prove" you're winning? How long you go without a successful attack is one way to measure, albeit a bad one by itself. I would say you have to combine factors to get a good "measuring stick" so to speak. For example if you have long period (a) without a successful attack (b) with a number of foiled attacks on the US, and (c.) with a great deal of progress towards undermining their infrastructure around the world. Then I think you're definitely on the right track and I think thats a great way of measuring your success. Note that all three of those are true at the moment. I completely understand that a lot of people feel jilted about the reasons for going to Iraq and while I sympathize I have to say "get over it". The government lies to us all the time, from the president to the congress, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between. The fact is that this is where we are and no amount of bitching and moaning is going to change it. We can choose to moan for a few more years or make the best of the situation by not completely forfeiting the equity we have in our Iraqi operations already. |
Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S. though, unless you mean a threat to our foreign oil interests. Yeah he committed horrible crimes against humanity, but it's not America's job to protect humanity. If it was, we'd be in Darfur and the Congo instead of Iraq. (Ask Ann Coulter how she feels about that.)
There are dictators far worse than Saddam who get away with murder because they don't own the most important land mass on the planet, connecting all of the eastern hemisphere, which just also happens to be full of oil.
Also, the folks look brown in Iraq, so it's easier to trick the American people into thinking they had anything to do with 9/11. Maybe if they were Chinese terrorists on the planes, we'd have invaded Taiwan or Japan or something.
With all that said, we're already there, but I still don't agree with the "you break you buy" philosophy when it comes to war and human lives. If for some reason, the U.S. needs to keep X amount of troops abroad meddling with other countries at all times, there are places where those troops could be doing far more good, and probably even costing less money.
