Was it worth it?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Was it worth one trillion dollars, 4,500 lives, and countless other lives devastated either physically, emotionally, or both to replace Saddam Hussein with Nouri al-Maliki?

How is Iraq better?
How is the Middle East better?
How is America better?

 

[Aaron]

Would you be asking this question if a democrat were in office at the time?

 

[church mouse guy]

Would you be asking this question if a democrat were in office at the time?

Is that a rhetorical question?

It is like Vietnam in that the decision was bi-partisan but the Democrats forgot about that in seeking a domestic political advantage.

Obama retreated from Iraq. Obama should hurry up and retreat from Afghanistan since he is using American troops as cannon fodder.

 

[Revmitchell]

Questions like the op are worthless. We do not know just how far Hussein would have gone with his WMD's. He was willing to attack other sovereign countries. To play what if's is of no value.

 

[exscentric]

Ask Iraq's, they have a better view of things.

 

[carpro]

Was it worth one trillion dollars, 4,500 lives, and countless other lives devastated either physically, emotionally, or both to replace Saddam Hussein with Nouri al-Maliki?

How is Iraq better?
How is the Middle East better?
How is America better?

Was it worth losing 38,000 lives in Korea?

N. Korea is still a threat in the region, but S. Korea is definitely better off.


Was it worth losing 58,000 lives in Vietnam? South Vietnam was still taken over by the North and communists killed 3,000,000 SE Asians after they took S. Vietnam.

None were military losses, but the most clearcut military victory of the 3 is Iraq.

None were political victories but the most clearcut political loss was obviously Vietnam.

Arguably, Iraq may have been most worth the cost. A murderous tyrant is gone.

The reason for the question is obvious.

Leftists and Bush haters are still trying to turn Iraq into a loss, both militarily and politically.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Was it worth losing 38,000 lives in Korea?



N. Korea is still a threat in the region, but S. Korea is definitely better off.





Was it worth losing 58,000 lives in Vietnam? South Vietnam was still taken over by the North and communists killed 3,000,000 SE Asians after they took S. Vietnam.



None were military losses, but the most clearcut military victory of the 3 is Iraq.



None were political victories but the most clearcut political loss was obviously Vietnam.



The reason for the question is obvious.



Leftists and Bush haters are still trying to turn Iraq into a loss, both militarily and politically.

So the answer to the OP would be 'yes?"

I would be interested in how Iraq, the Middle East, and America are better off as a result off this smashing military victory.

 

[InTheLight]

Was it worth one trillion dollars, 4,500 lives, and countless other lives devastated either physically, emotionally, or both to replace Saddam Hussein with Nouri al-Maliki?

Probably not.

How is Iraq better?

They now have free elections for leaders. Many of their treasures and antiquities have been returned to the people. The country is being cleaned up after two wars in 15 years.

How is the Middle East better?

There has been no civil war in Iraq. Iran did not invade.

How is America better?

We don't have to worry about WMD's in Iraq.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Perhaps - but from what I am hearing and reading Iraq is still a mess, Al-qaeda is back, civil war is about to break out, and Malaki has taken away most of Parliament's power.

Did anyone really fear WMDs from Iraq?

Hence he reason for this discussion - to examine the issue at hand.

 

[carpro]

So the answer to the OP would be 'yes?"

I would be interested in how Iraq, the Middle East, and America are better off as a result off this smashing military victory.

The reasons are obvious to all but a leftest or a Bush hater.

The reasons will never be admitted by the same.

It's a waste of time to even discuss it.

So I have a better idea, why don't you tell us why they are all worse off?

BTW I like your description of "smashing military victory", but those are your words. Not mine.

 

[Revmitchell]

Things would be much better except Obama messed everything up trying to rush us out of there.

 

[carpro]

Did anyone really fear WMDs from Iraq?

Almost everyone in Washington did, at one time or another.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Almost everyone in Washington did, at one time or another.

Washington politicians in both parties are easily swept into war fever when their owners want to sell more guns.

So the world is really a better place as a result of the Iraq war and it was worth the cost?

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes the world is better off and our men and women did not die in vain. Hussein was a cruel dictator and aggressive against other sovereign countries. He needed to be dealt with.

Whatever is going on now does not indicate whether we should have dealt with him. Two different subjects entirely.

 

[carpro]

Washington politicians in both parties are easily swept into war fever when their owners want to sell more guns.

So the world is really a better place as a result of the Iraq war and it was worth the cost?

I noticed you still won't tell us why you so obviously think all are worse off and it wasn't worth the cost.

It's always easier to snipe the opinions of others than it is to put your own out there, isn't it?

I consider that approach to be cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

So , come on, tell us. I can't hardly wait.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Still looking for where I claimed Iraq is worse off?

A lot of American and British families are worse off because their brave brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters died in the effort.

 

[Aaron]

It's implied in your question, duh.

I'll recommend a documentary: The World Without US by by Mitch Anderson and Jason J. Tomaric. You think you know what is going on in the world, but you don't.

 

[carpro]

Still looking for where I claimed Iraq is worse off?

A lot of American and British families are worse off because their brave brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters died in the effort.

Is that all you've got? A lot? Actually , very few, for what was accomplished. And all the Americans, at least, were volunteers. So stop trying to make victims out of them.

That's the problem with your favorite approach. You want everyone to put themselves out there while you take potshots at them.

So what is your answer to the rest of your questions, and why?

I really don't expect an answer. I just want to see how far you will go with this cowardly approach.

 

[carpro]

Washington politicians in both parties are easily swept into war fever when their owners want to sell more guns.

More dishonesty.

Intelligence agencies from many countries had all came to the same conclusions...Saddam had or was seeking to acquire WMDs. Saddam even went to extremes to convince them they were right.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The truth is Iraq is right back where it was. It is on the verge of civil war. Jihadists control several major population centres. 1000 Iraqis died in street violence in February. Mailiki is setting himself as the same kind of tyrant was Hussein was. Things may not be any worse, but they certainly are no better.

Sure, things looked better before Mailiki threw the Americans out and, in reality, troops could not stay there forever, but in the long run American involvement will only be a blip on the screen in a troubled and violent nation. Nothing of long lasting significance was accomplished.