Basically her point is that by invading iraq, the terrorists our fighting us there.

Which is true. In Iraq the US Army is a pretty tempting target for terrorists...

Why bother attacking the US on US soil when you can take out people in it's army at a weak exposed point... AND have a chance of getting away with your lives?

Which for a while was actually one of my theories as to why the war in Iraq was started... as I still can't figure out why.  Still... seems way to inefficient economically to have been planned on purpose. 

 She's comparing being shot in Chicago to dieing in iraq.  Which is likely true.  It's highly possible that more Americans die in chicago per year via violence then Iraq.  She's just not counting the Iraqi people.

I mean heck, more people die in drunk driving in a year in the US then americans have died in the Iraq war total. 

I'd like to know how many Americans are in America and how many Americans are in Iraq. I'm sure I could have just as much fun with these numbers as Ann Coulter's crazy ass. But I'm pretty sure an armed U.S. soldier would be safer in Chicago than in Iraq. I'm also sure an unarmed U.S. civilian would be safer in Chicago than in Iraq. If she's arguing that armed U.S. soldiers are safer than unarmed U.S. civilians in Chicago, maybe she's right, but that is the stupidest argument I've ever heard of.



@Kasz, if Ann Coulter ever argued that that was the reason we invaded Iraq, I'd understand her argument, but nobody ever argued that before the war. There's this huge logical gap between 9/11 and the invasion that I refuse to leap across. They don't get to change their justifications each time the last one gets disproved.

Of course Iraq was never a threat, but I also don't see how terrorism was even a threat after 9/11. Didn't they take over 5 years or so to plan 9/11? Iraq War or no Iraq War, I don't think 7 years without another attack is a sign of success. People have been more afraid than usual recently, which is a sign that the terror tactics are working... but I can't think of a way to prove you're beating terrorists.

How can we prove we're winning? No new attacks? Doesn't that mean we were winning on September 10th, 2001? Or do we just count the days since the last attack and come up with an arbitrary number that represents safety and freedom? This is one of the major problems with wars against vague ideologies instead of against actual people in actual countries.

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.

 "We're going to invade iraq and put our troops (your kids) at harm so a bunch of people in NY won't get attacked.  Probably wouldn't play well with other states."

Whatever real reasons they had... the justifications they used at the time were the reasons they actually did it.  Like how a senator claims he wants more ethanol subsides to help the enviroment,  when in reality it's going to hurt the enviroment and he wants them for farmland.

As for the war on terror.  Well yeah, there is no winning that.  It's like the War on drugs... a pointless "war" that you can't win that is going to sinkhole your budget that is one of a few cases that's better to treat on the end results.  Like... just stopping terrorism before it happens rather then take out some root group.  Doesn't make sense the way terrorist orginzations are built.  

All you can do is claim your winning when things get a little better, and don't say anything when your losing.

Of course... the problem is... the war on terrorism won't end.  Obama isn't any better then McCain in that regard... with his plan to use Iraq as a base of operations to send unilateral forces into pakistan to attack terrorists.   Why should he be any better anyway.  I mean "Fighting terror" that's like "Helping Happiness"!

My hope is the War on Terror is code for "Osama Bin Laden" in most Americans minds, and the country as well as the government loses focus once he's dead.  What with his kidneys he's gotta have what... 20 years at most? 

I'd argue Sadam Hussein's destablizing of the region was good for us. They kept Iran in check. I mean... that's why the US put him their in the first place.

Unlike the current Iraq government which is actually more Pro-Iran... all we've really done is put the middle east a little more into the pockets of Iran.

Honestly the "what if"s of what would have happened or even will happen are highly speculative to say the least. I actually stated it as a side point and not a major one, partly for this reason.

You could certainly argue that position, but that position admits that we had two problems (Iraq and Iran) that precariously counteracted each other. And if we assume for a moment that this was the case I would ask why we should continue to rely on our enemies to counteract each other? I personally have a hard time believing any strategy that relies on our enemies continuing to act in our benefit is a good one.