Cost of Iraq War

[rancid]

Why should I bother with you? You box in my argument to shape it that I'm in favor of attacking any area that can be perceived as a national security threat?

Exactly my point. Your argument does not make sense. Read your posts for the rationale in attacking Iraq. Why do you not extend that argument to other countries?

 

[rancid]

Are you saying that, prior to the invasion, which obviously "stirred up so much hatred" money would not have been channeled to our enemies?

I concede that point. I don't know that it could have been worse. I do think following 9/11 some more diplomacy would have helped us with the majority of the world. Sure terrorists would have still wanted to destroy us and some money would have gone to them but there were a lot more moderates who may have benefitted from aid rather than bombs.
Once the bombs were falling, we polarized the situation. Kind of like making stupid statements like the with us or against line. Good theater but not good diplomacy.

 

[30gAy]

For crying out loud- here's a quote from Andrew McCarthy, the U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the first WTC attack.

"If you want to say we shouldn?t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say you?d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists."

6thGen you are as dedious as a 6thGrader sometimes...............

Your quote is about as honest an assesment of our choices leading to the war as saying:

It was either invade Iraq, or Saddam will blow up New York. What's it going to be folks? A mushroom cloud over Manhattan or invade Iraq?

If you don't support the war you'd better be prepared to say you prefer the alternative, a nuclear wasteland where Long Island used to sit. It's that easy folks.

Well I'm not going with the idea that we were facing a Saddam armed with WMD, coddling Jihadists, and flushed with cash. He was none of the above.

 

[30gAy]

What would need to occur in Iraq that would cause you to reconsider your continued support of our efforts there?

Excellent question. 6thGen?

 

[Cheering472]

Please release scooterbugs thread. May we get back on topic?

Should we restart another thread on costs and leave this one since it seems to be at an impasse?

 

[30gAy]

Please release scooterbugs thread. May we get back on topic?

Should we restart another thread on costs and leave this one since it seems to be at an impasse?

Guilty as charged. Scooterbug has posed an interesting question, I'll go push buttons on someone elses thread now..............

 

[Cheering472]

Guilty as charged. Scooterbug has posed an interesting question, I'll go push buttons on someone elses thread now..............

Wait for me...:leaving:

This is a

 

[6thGen]

I concede that point. I don't know that it could have been worse. I do think following 9/11 some more diplomacy would have helped us with the majority of the world. Sure terrorists would have still wanted to destroy us and some money would have gone to them but there were a lot more moderates who may have benefitted from aid rather than bombs.
Once the bombs were falling, we polarized the situation. Kind of like making stupid statements like the with us or against line. Good theater but not good diplomacy.

In hindsight, more diplomacy looks like it would have been helpful. But you have to concede that we wouldn?t get the Security Council on board, not with Russia and France with their hands in the Oil for Food cookie jar. We could have used the time, though, to come up with something beyond shock and awe. On the other hand, once the bombs were falling, we saw countries in the Middle East getting serious about going after terrorists within their borders where they were not when we were in Afghanistan. Good diplomacy requires good theatre.

 

[redfisher]

There will always be those willing to fight-and those who won't...I just hope we never reach a point where those who won't outnumber those who will...

All the rest is chatter...

 

[rancid]

In hindsight, more diplomacy looks like it would have been helpful. But you have to concede that we wouldn?t get the Security Council on board, not with Russia and France with their hands in the Oil for Food cookie jar. We could have used the time, though, to come up with something beyond shock and awe. On the other hand, once the bombs were falling, we saw countries in the Middle East getting serious about going after terrorists within their borders where they were not when we were in Afghanistan. Good diplomacy requires good theatre.

Good point. I like the " Good diplomacy requires good theater " line.
I think the attack on Iraq did help scare some countries. However , if that was the goal it has been accomplished and now we are simply stuck there waiting to leave; at which point our enemies will declare victory and undo our gains from the above mentioned scare.
This should have been fairly clear to the powers to be as it was to many others. My belief is that was not the goal in Iraq but something else.