George Bush has made the US and the world more safe?

[Fage]

Posted by Tootall4u, September 13, 2008 11:44AM


At what cost? The Bush doctrine of "preemptive war" was designed to give Bush an excuse to invade and attack sovereign nations that he perceived to be a threat to the national security of the United States. This is what happened in Iraq. This war has cost the lives of more than 4,400 US soldiers, nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and more than 444 contractors. Another 30,000 soldiers have suffered injuries. Financially speaking, the Iraqi invasion and occupation and the Afghanistan war have cost more than $1 trillion, most of it borrowed from foreign banks.

With Bush now leaning towards unilateralism, we have lost close ties with traditional allies, including Canada and Great Britain. And with all of the attention on Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia is exerting its strength in Europe, while South American countries Brazil Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia have embraced left leaning politicians hostile to US traditional interests in the area.

In the Middle East, Iran continues to defy the west while rebuilding their nuclear program. Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel has won Palestinian elections. The invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has arguably bred more terrorists who hate the west. Additionally, the US has lost credibility with much of the rest of the world. How can we justify any opposition to Russia for arbitrarily invading and occupying a sovereign country like Georgia when we did the same thing in Iraq, especially if Russia has adopted the Bush doctrine of "preemptive war"?

The Bush Administrations use of torture to elicit information from suspected terrorist has irreparably damaged the reputation of the United States as a world leader and moral authority. CIA agents have been accused of kidnapping citizens off the street in foreign countries, transporting them to another country then torturing them to gain intelligence information. All of this is in violation of US Law, International Law and various treaties. Clearly, Bush has alienated the rest of the world.

We have lost civil liberties with the suspension of habeas corpus. The US Government has imprisoned suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, Cuba calling them "enemy combatants". These prisoners are not allowed legal representation and many have been held for years with no access to judicial review in court.

The US Government Intelligence agencies have been listening in on private phone conversations of US Citizens without warrants since Bush took office, bypassing the FISA courts and with the assistance of many phone companies.

The PEW Global Attitude Project released an international survey on America's Image in June 2005. The survey revealed that the world attitude towards the US had deteriorated dramatically. In Canada, those with a favorable opinion had dropped from 71% to 59% and in Germany; it had dropped from 78%to 41%. In the Muslim world, Turkey and Pakistan had a 23% favorable rating for the US. PEW's research says that Bush is at the core of the international disfavor.

It would be extremely difficult for Bush's followers to support the argument that the world is a safer and more stable place than when Bush took office in 2001.



Source:http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2008/09/george_bush_has_made_the_us_an.html

[Johnny_H02]

Depends on what you mean by "Safe". There hasn't been an attack really on the U.S. after 9/11 so they could claim that they made the U.S. a safer place. The world on the other hand I'm more inclined to swing towards "No". I am not Anti-American I am very supportive and appreciative of our biggest Allie and trading partner.

It just seams like in the interest of protecting themselves they alienated themselves from other Nations who are Allies and perhaps even helped polarize East & West again. Very inadvertently of course but it really seems the case these days and it does take two after all.

[Van Gogh]

i don't think the world is any more dangerous because of bush, but i do think that he went about his war the wrong way. it was mostly out of anger. afghanistan i understand, but iraq made no sense. the information we were given as people was a lie. there were no wmd's in iraq, and if there were they had ample time to move them when we announced we were coming in to find them. probably something bush counted on to cover his lie. :|

[Bohemoth]

The Bush administration didn't claim "War on terror accomplished".

In fact what Bush did is just laying the foundation for lots more to come.
At least the U.S. and its allies are aware now of the threat and actively work on preventing attacks. Before that the world was day-dreaming and that's why 9-11 could happen.

It's like good medicine, may taste horrible, but helps.

[DID]

I'm asking myself what if after 9/11 US didn't react?
The world (muslim countries) would be a total chaos and we (western countries) closed in a protective fence. Ad to this that Middle-east situation get worst, Saddam still and attacking Israel by helping terror groups. Maybe building Nuke to protect against Iran.
Afghanistan and area (Pakistan, India, central Asia) become a blaze, with possible implication of Russia and China in protective strikes.
Finally mediteranea become the protection area of Europe maybe Turkey join EU or fall into fanatic Islam.
So yes for me even if he is not pefect and maybe fail in some points (history will tell) Bush has contribute to make the world more safe.

[Vorian]

The world (muslim countries) would be a total chaos and we (western countries) closed in a protective fence.

What's different now?


Ad to this that Middle-east situation get worst, Saddam still and attacking Israel by helping terror groups.

Saddam was under closed borders and could do ****. And Israel is still attacked anyway. Missed Lebanon war and Hezbollah?

Maybe building Nuke to protect against Iran.

How?


Afghanistan and area (Pakistan, India, central Asia) become a blaze, with possible implication of Russia and China in protective strikes.

How do you come to this conclusion? A-stan would still be a ****hole with Talibans fighting N. Alliance and Pakistan and India the same as now.


Finally mediteranea become the protection area of Europe maybe Turkey join EU or fall into fanatic Islam.
???????????????????????

[Zombie Squad]

The bottom line world countries are more aware and more security measures are brought in against terror-sympathizers. Countries to mention are more toward western policies than before are, Iraq, Lebanon as Syria is out, Afghanistan and Libya.

[Vorian]

Western or US policies, Zombie Squad? Cause there is no united West since the fall of communism. Only allies that each looks for his own interests, which not always agree.

[the_hog]

All George has done is to poke a stick into a hornets nest.:slap:.

[SrB-23Q]

i don't think the world is any more dangerous because of bush, but i do think that he went about his war the wrong way. it was mostly out of anger. afghanistan i understand, but iraq made no sense. the information we were given as people was a lie. there were no wmd's in iraq, and if there were they had ample time to move them when we announced we were coming in to find them. probably something bush counted on to cover his lie. :|

put in propaganda sounds more appropriate p-)

[Switek]

Is Mr. Bush, with all respect, a God? Is he such influential and can control whole world? This thread title is based on false basis.

[DID]

How do you come to this conclusion?

This is personnal idea of what could happen if US didn't react to 9/11 attack.

[IDF_TANKER]

The only thing this war did is removing a relatively stable secular regime which was an integral and very important part of balance of powers in ME. It was a strong dictatorship (the only form of rule that can sustain a stable ME state comprised of different rival tribes and sects in artificial colonial borders), that opposed feared Islamic radicalism as direct threat to its existence and confined influence of Iran. Now this regime is gone, you do the math.

DID, this war is the worst thing that happened to Israel in the last 25 years or so, you have nothing to defend. The only "positive" thing it did to us is boosting our arms sales - well...

[sinophile]

George Bush has made the US and the world more safe? (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3548106#post3548106) Source:http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2008/09/george_bush_has_made_the_us_an.html

Another person looking for a baby without any labor pains.

[jokuvaan]

In Iraq nothing would have threaten Saddam, one of his nutcase sons would have eventually taken over and somebody after that. Surely not happy story for local people and continuous risk for neighbors.

In Afganistan, Taleban would be running all-smooth, making country central hub of Global extreme Islamists with all consequences.

But we have too short perspective to make any clear conclusions, things need to be looked 100-200 years from now to say how much benifit these wars resulted.

[Ulytau]

Only can say

Watch No End in Sight Documentary movie..

[Power_serj]

Is it 2003 or 2004 again? This thread sure smells like it.

[liftwaffe]

I suppose certain parts of the world are safer,Some people with little or no education may belive they are safer.Certain fundamentalist regimes have gotten another free pass to torture and kill based on religous law due to the publics perception that it makes them safer.

Give it a couple of hundred years and we will see.

Feeling safe and being safe are often very different things,but both are equally important and hard to actually measure.

My 2cents.

[Ought Six]

Did FDR make America more safe by opposing the Japanese and Nazis, and sending lend/lease aid to England? Does opposing evil and engaging our enemies make us safer in the short run? What about in the long run?

[liftwaffe]

If you are comparing ww2 to the war on terror I belive you are overlooking some basic realities.
The two are at least in my eyes very different.

To answer your question,Probably yes.The right desicion was made,If not for anything else than the fact that both Tojo and Adolf declared war on the US.A president who does not respond to that has failed.

[Serjey]

i think big guys shouldn`t interfear in children`s play if they plays far from your house.

[Jurinko]

Did Churchill´s decision to fight made the world safer in 1940? In short term no, in long term you decide.

And concerning the claim that preemptive invading of sovereign states is no-no - the same people blame Western democracies for NOT invading the Nazi Germany in late ´30s. Comparing those two, Saddam had started two wars already before and treated his own people ruthlessly, while Adolf only "made Germany strong and established order from the mess of Weimar democracy", quoting the Russia strong!! terminology for Yeltsin-Putin times.

[Mackie]

The only thing this war did is removing a relatively stable secular regime which was an integral and very important part of balance of powers in ME. It was a strong dictatorship (the only form of rule that can sustain a stable ME state comprised of different rival tribes and sects in artificial colonial borders), that opposed feared Islamic radicalism as direct threat to its existence and confined influence of Iran. Now this regime is gone, you do the math.

DID, this war is the worst thing that happened to Israel in the last 25 years or so, you have nothing to defend. The only "positive" thing it did to us is boosting our arms sales - well...

Well said.
The Iranian regime is stronger than ever before now supported by a Shiit empire.

[Mackie]

And concerning the claim that preemptive invading of sovereign states is no-no - the same people blame Western democracies for NOT invading the Nazi Germany in late ´30s. Comparing those two, Saddam had started two wars already before and treated his own people ruthlessly, while Adolf only "made Germany strong and established order from the mess of Weimar democracy", quoting the Russia strong!! terminology for Yeltsin-Putin times.

What was the original "threat" in Iraq? I thought WMDs. The problem is not they doesn't found any WMDs - it's a scandal because they KNEW that they will never find anything.
If this war was right - why they don't told the truth?

"treated his own people ruthlessly"? What's about Saudi Arabia?

[Jurinko]

What was the original "threat" in Iraq? I thought WMDs. The problem is not they doesn't found any WMDs - it's a scandal because they KNEW that they will never find anything.
If this war was right - why they don't told the truth?

"treated his own people ruthlessly"? What's about Saudi Arabia?

Truth is, there were no gas chambers in Germany 1936 (yet). But, there was stock of 500MT of yellow cake south of Baghdad, recently transported to Canada.

Saudi Arabia´s regime sucks, but at least they do not pepper their own people with WMD (yes WMD) nor attack their neighbors. Saddam could do the same as Khadaffi after GWI and he would still rule the Iraq.

[annihilation]

After 8 years of the bush administration, when he leaves office this year. Can we say it is better or worse? Hard to say right now as time will only tell. But for me right now, imo, he has done more damage to the credibility and standing of the united states than he has done good to it. The war in Iraq was hurried, needless, ill planned, poorly managed (paulson, etc) and financially non profitable to have been undertaken that cost us our focus in afghanistan and other parts of the world. Congress did blindly vote to go to war. But it was at the request and plea of the administration with its more than faulty intelligence and wrapping of patriotism. A request that the administration said they needed so they could show saddam that they were not bluffing in the negotiations. Iraqs initial failures / setbacks attributed to all his "political capital" to being wasted and became a lame duck. How many things did he try to get started only to get it side lined? Social security, medicare, isreali and pals peace, etc. ?

Then again if the war in Iraq was better planned for the aftermath and we had a better hold of that nation, things could have been alot different. The public / my view would be less negative toward the whole administration and less abrassive.

Or imo just better off not getting involved. We do not have to be the world police, nor should we. If a nation wants to go burning down its their own business as long as it doesn't effect me and my trade. Their is a race going on for countries to retool for the next century and I would like us to stay on top.

[annihilation]

Truth is, there were no gas chambers in Germany 1936 (yet). But, there was stock of 500MT of yellow cake south of Baghdad, recently transported to Canada.

Saudi Arabia´s regime sucks, but at least they do not pepper their own people with WMD (yes WMD) nor attack their neighbors. Saddam could do the same as Khadaffi after GWI and he would still rule the Iraq.

Look how long it has been taking for Iran to get a nuke? The world would have had plenty time to deal with it...

[Mackie]

Truth is, there were no gas chambers in Germany 1936 (yet). But, there was stock of 500MT of yellow cake south of Baghdad, recently transported to Canada.

Yellow cake from 1991. It exists NO final storage solution in the wolrd today. Was yellow cake found in any grenades prepared for war in 2003? I think no.
It's like invading Germany 1933 because of BASF.
Truth is there where concentration camps in 1933 Germany against political oppositions.



Saudi Arabia´s regime sucks, but at least they do not pepper their own people with WMD (yes WMD) nor attack their neighbors. Saddam could do the same as Khadaffi after GWI and he would still rule the Iraq.
They kill people in public if they change their religion. What do think would the Saudi Arabian regime do with radical political oppositions.
Do you really think Saddam was able to attack any neigbour in 2003?
And please tell me why the Bush government create hoax pics of mobile chemical trucks?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

[2Sheds_Jackson]

George Bush's job is not to make the world safer. His job is to make America safer. I can disagree with some of his methodologies, and maybe question the cost/benefit equation, but on balance I would have to say that yes, we're in a better place security-wise than we were. As to the rest of the world - well, they've all got governments and armies and such to take care of them.

[California Joe]

Someone email all of 2Sheds posts to Sarah Palin so she can sorta sound like she isn't retarded.

[annihilation]

George Bush's job is not to make the world safer. His job is to make America safer. I can disagree with some of his methodologies, and maybe question the cost/benefit equation, but on balance I would have to say that yes, we're in a better place security-wise than we were. As to the rest of the world - well, they've all got governments and armies and such to take care of them.

On a scale how much better and how better could have it been if it was focused differently? We could say that american is safer by having stricter security checks at airports or more control on visitors coming into this country alone without the need for the rest of the ****.

[IDF_TANKER]

George Bush's job is not to make the world safer. His job is to make America safer. I can disagree with some of his methodologies, and maybe question the cost/benefit equation, but on balance I would have to say that yes, we're in a better place security-wise than we were. As to the rest of the world - well, they've all got governments and armies and such to take care of them.

Forget Afghanistan for a moment. Explain me how war in Iraq contributed to the security of US.

[annihilation]

George Bush has/will make the world and the USA safer when he leaves office. :)
Once he is out of power we will all be for the better and we can then bitch about the next president.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

On a scale how much better and how better could have it been if it was focused differently? We could say that american is safer by having stricter security checks at airports or more control on visitors coming into this country alone without the need for the rest of the ****.

"Better" or "Safer"? These are two different things.

To illustrate the difference, we must use the international units of measure for these two subjective ratings. The I.U. for "betterness" is of course the VanHalen, while the unit of "safety" is the RetardHelmet. Under George Bush, America has fallen two VanHalens in betterness, but has gained a full RetardHelmet in safety.

Using the conversion factor, we find that's a trade-off of 1.4 MontyHalls. Is it worth it? I can't say.


Someone email all of 2Sheds posts to Sarah Palin so she can sorta sound like she isn't retarded.

I sent in a suggestion to her campaign - that whenever she gets stumped on a question, she should stop speaking immediately, gaze lustfully into the camera, slowly pull her blouse open, and whisper "see my sugar bears?" in a deep, husky voice.

[deagle]

yea b/c terrorists now definitely know that they're being hunted down. but it just depends on if extreme effort is made.

[PeterRJG]

Has Bush made the world and the US more safe? He's made it ensafenated!

http://www.aesedra.com/ljcrap/safenated.jpg

A strongerized world is the best world!

[Power_serj]

Forget Afghanistan for a moment. Explain me how war in Iraq contributed to the security of US.

Why would we forget Afghanistan? President Bush was the only one to act after being attacked time and time again by Al Qaeda....but if you really want to pretend that never happened, I'll be glad to play that game.

Going back to ancient history...er....1980 when Iraq invaded their neighbor to steal their oil resources to monopolize the oil industry. Now skip ahead to 1990, when Iraq tried to invade their neighbors Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to steal their oil. Now skip ahead to 2003 when Saddam consistently violated the UN, leading the world to believe he had chemical weapons (which was a fact that he had them in the past).

Now lets compare that to the actions of Al Qaeda. In 1993, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2000, Al Qaeda put bombs into the side of an American warship. In 2001, we all know what happened.

Do you see any similarities? I sure do. The similarities are that both Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were getting stronger and over time were able to hit the United States where it hurts. Al Qaeda wants to kill us all, but Saddam wanted to hurt us in the pocket....not because he hated us, but for his own selfish gains. That's no excuse however.

I'm not going to answer your question of how the Iraq War contributed to United States security, I'll let you answer: Should the United States have sat by and let Saddam build chemical and/or nuclear weapons, similar to the way the United States allowed Al Qaeda to recruit and train under our noses? Should the United States waited for a major attack to react like we had done with Al Qaeda (whether it be on the United States, allies, or interests)? Does self-defense or defense of allies and interests ever have to be justified?

Pretending the Iraq War never happened, what would the current situation be like? Iran and Iraq would still hate each other like they always have. Iran would still be going after nuclear weapons. Iraq, seeing Iran building nuclear weapons, would that start a regional arms race? There would then be two new nuclear threats in the region. How would the United States and the global community deal with two threats trying to build nuclear weapons. We can all see how hard it is to deal with one. Going to war with Iraq may have been unavoidable. If it was unavoidable, 2003 was the best time to do it, before both Iran and Iraq have reached a climax in a regional nuclear race.

Some might say there were too many "ifs" and "buts" and the Bush Administration should have waited for more intelligence before going in for the kill. The same people say that the Bush Administration should have acted sooner on the Al Qaeda threat. For President Bush, there was no "right answer." Had he waited and it turned out Saddam was building WMDs his problem would have been "not doing enough". The only time right for war is when you have the (political) momentum and the military might. Those obligations were fulfilled and the expectation, to not let another attack happen on United States soil, was met. President Bush did the right thing, and made the United States safer.

I took a lot of time and brainpower to write that. Discuss.

[angry cow]

Suffice to say, discussions of this sort are difficult to determine when we are still so close to the event itself occurring. Even most of academia had written off Iraq as completely lost, only to see dramatic changes take place in that AOR. And Afghanistan is still at the point it could go either way. Is the world more safer right now then it was in 2001? That depends on where you stand. And is the world more safe than in 2000? September 11th, 2001 didn't change anything, the world had already changed, 9/11 just changed peoples perceptions. Just because the global security situation seems a certain way, doesn't mean it is that way. And what will the world be like in 10 years?

Will the brief 2 decades of American unipolarity be judged as having promoted peace? Probably not. Will they be judged as having laid the basis for advancing and protecting globalization and a neo-liberalist economic order that has brought almost a billion people out of poverty (Goldman Sachs est. 2015) and created a foundation for a more lasting peace into the next century? That's the real question that must be asked. You must look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China, India, the EU, the US, not in their own spotlight but in the context of everything else. Economics, politics, culture, etc.

I think if you don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by the short term questions and start taking the longer view, you are going to be hard pressed to challenge the notion that the US was simply going around starting pointless wars. And I think that the disruption and the numbers of people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, history will treat these as mere footnotes compared with the numbers of people dying in Darfur and Aceh, the growing integration of the global economy, the rise out of poverty of South and East Asia, and the longest period in recorded history without a war between two great powers.

But history will decide.

[IDF_TANKER]

Someone email all of 2Sheds posts to Sarah Palin so she can sorta sound like she isn't retarded.

She'd better not to, methinks.


"Better" or "Safer"? These are two different things.

To illustrate the difference, we must use the international units of measure for these two subjective ratings. The I.U. for "betterness" is of course the VanHalen, while the unit of "safety" is the RetardHelmet. Under George Bush, America has fallen two VanHalens in betterness, but has gained a full RetardHelmet in safety.

Using the conversion factor, we find that's a trade-off of 1.4 MontyHalls. Is it worth it? I can't say.



I sent in a suggestion to her campaign - that whenever she gets stumped on a question, she should stop speaking immediately, gaze lustfully into the camera, slowly pull her blouse open, and whisper "see my sugar bears?" in a deep, husky voice.

(I refer to the first part of the post, of course.)

[Stonewall71]

Bush was the biggest disgrace to the world since a long time ago.

[Mackie]

Do you see any similarities?

No.
I see the similarities in China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, .........................

What's your suggestion? Attacking every possible threat?

[4X4Driver]

The only thing this war did is removing a relatively stable secular regime which was an integral and very important part of balance of powers in ME. It was a strong dictatorship (the only form of rule that can sustain a stable ME state comprised of different rival tribes and sects in artificial colonial borders), that opposed feared Islamic radicalism as direct threat to its existence and confined influence of Iran. Now this regime is gone, you do the math.


Well observation sir..I happen to agree with you.

[budgie]

But we have too short perspective to make any clear conclusions, things need to be looked 100-200 years from now to say how much benifit these wars resulted.


A hundred years? 200 even? Even the "big picture" isn't that big.

Let's all hope that in a hundred years the Arabs still have their land and religion, the Palestine problem has been settled in a　manner beneficial to all, and the west has learned to stop meddling.

If Bush gets the credit for all that, even I'll drop my pants and join the Republican circle-jerk.

[JKD]

Does self-defense or defense of allies and interests ever have to be justified?
When it's preemptive? Yes. "We, uh, thought they might attack us...at some point...in the future...or something...maybe." doesn't seem like a very good reason for nation states to go around invading other nations states.

[IDF_TANKER]

Why would we forget Afghanistan? President Bush was the only one to act after being attacked time and time again by Al Qaeda....but if you really want to pretend that never happened, I'll be glad to play that game.
I ignore Afghanistan, because anybody in Bush's place would do pretty much the same. There is not much controversy about this particular war. Iraq is the whole other story.



Going back to ancient history...er....1980 when Iraq invaded their neighbor to steal their oil resources to monopolize the oil industry. Now skip ahead to 1990, when Iraq tried to invade their neighbors Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to steal their oil. Now skip ahead to 2003 when Saddam consistently violated the UN, leading the world to believe he had chemical weapons (which was a fact that he had them in the past).
Yes, Saddam is the one to blame in provoking Americans. :)


Now lets compare that to the actions of Al Qaeda. In 1993, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2000, Al Qaeda put bombs into the side of an American warship. In 2001, we all know what happened.
Aagain, I'm going to ignore this one, confining discussion to the war in Iraq.


Do you see any similarities? I sure do. The similarities are that both Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were getting stronger and over time were able to hit the United States where it hurts. Al Qaeda wants to kill us all, but Saddam wanted to hurt us in the pocket....not because he hated us, but for his own selfish gains. That's no excuse however.

No, frankly, I don't see any similarities - different ideologies(secular Arabic nationalist vs pan-Arabic Islamists, the most bitter enemies of each other), different political structure (Iraqi secular dictatorship vs Sharia State in Afghanistan), different geopolitical situation (Iraq locked between Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia (all enemies to one or another degree) vs world network of almost completely independent terrorist cells), different agendas (nation state, perhaps in wider but still defined borders vs caliphate, a sharia empire all over Middle East and more), different everything. The only thing that unifies them is that both hated Americans.


I'm not going to answer your question of how the Iraq War contributed to United States security, I'll let you answer: Should the United States have sat by and let Saddam build chemical and/or nuclear weapons, similar to the way the United States allowed Al Qaeda to recruit and train under our noses? Should the United States waited for a major attack to react like we had done with Al Qaeda (whether it be on the United States, allies, or interests)? Does self-defense or defense of allies and interests ever have to be justified?
Again, why are you mixing Saddam with Al-Qaida. Saddam eventually wasn't going to send suicide bombers into skyscrapers - a totally different ideology and available practical means. And who said anything about chemical weapons. Where are they? After all these years in Iraq - you found NOTHING. The only reason Saddam had to pretend having them is ironically the deterrent, don't forget that beside Americans he had Kurds and Iranians to worry about. And while for the former chemicals weapons served as excuse to attack him, for the last ones it was a deterrent. And, BTW, the fact that you bit him once is exactly why you hadn't do it again. After break of USSR and ages of constant sanctions and blockade Saddam's power was the pale resemblance of what he was before 1990. What he had is an old crappy army which in the best case could keep his regime relatively stable.



Pretending the Iraq War never happened, what would the current situation be like? Iran and Iraq would still hate each other like they always have. Iran would still be going after nuclear weapons. Iraq, seeing Iran building nuclear weapons, would that start a regional arms race? There would then be two new nuclear threats in the region. How would the United States and the global community deal with two threats trying to build nuclear weapons. We can all see how hard it is to deal with one. Going to war with Iraq may have been unavoidable. If it was unavoidable, 2003 was the best time to do it, before both Iran and Iraq have reached a climax in a regional nuclear race.

Oh, man, don't you understand that in this case your job of dealing with Iran could be much-much easier! The contrary is true, the war in Iraq worsened your(our, eventually) position vs Iran dramatically. One of the main reason why US hands are tied now with Iran is because Iran controls the huge Shia community in Iraq (roughly 60% of total population sitting on oil-fields). The success of US in Iraq directly depends on Iran. By removing Saddam's dictatorship you removed iron bounds which held together this troublesome "nation".

You created a geopolitical vacuum which immediately started being filled up with Kurdish separatism (BTW, in its own a very big problems for Americans), Iranians reuniting with their Shia brothers, Sunni Islamists and G*d knows who else. By removing Saddam you gave a great political leverage to Iranians, or to put it differently, let Iranians to grab you by the balls. And now every time you give them a wrong look they just squeeze them a little bit to remind you that Shia region can be much bigger problem that it is right now.

Now. If you kept Saddam you could actually play them against each other maintaining constant balance of powers in this very volatile region (like you had been doing BTW during all the Iraq-Iran war), that's even before Saddam being self-sufficient Iranian **** blocker.

Some might say there were too many "ifs" and "buts" and the Bush Administration should have waited for more intelligence before going in for the kill. The same people say that the Bush Administration should have acted sooner on the Al Qaeda threat. For President Bush, there was no "right answer." Had he waited and it turned out Saddam was building WMDs his problem would have been "not doing enough". The only time right for war is when you have the (political) momentum and the military might. Those obligations were fulfilled and the expectation, to not let another attack happen on United States soil, was met. President Bush did the right thing, and made the United States safer.

Just see above...


I took a lot of time and brainpower to write that. Discuss.

Me too. Discuss. :)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I ignore Afghanistan, because anybody in Bush's place would do pretty much the same. There is not much controversy about this particular war. Iraq is the whole other story.

But is it though? Contrary to the fiction that the media and the left has tried so hard to create, Bush is not a king and didn't take the country to war with a disinterested waive of his hand. Do we need to post the long list of statements and votes by democrats- going back to even the early days of the Clinton administration, designed to take us to war?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not much controversy about the Iraq war. It's sad, unfortunate, and horrible - but not controversial. It's exactly the picture we should expect to see over and over again if the same dots are connected. Iraq made concessions in order to escape the full consequences of the last war they started. They then refused to comply for over a decade, happily walked across every line drawn in the sand, endured every economic sanction while amassing gold toilets and AK-47's, and amassed billions while the UN helped. For agreements of this sort to mean anything, for the sacrifices of those who fought the previous war to count for something - we must be willing to do what it takes to ensure compliance. The consequences of failing to do that would be far more devastating than anything stemming from following through.


If Bush gets the credit for all that, even I'll drop my pants and join the Republican circle-jerk.

If there's any circle-jerking going on, I'd say it's the Democrats, who swept into power on an anti-war platform, only to continue to overwhelmingly vote to support the war. There in the center, covered in Congressional Democrat Man-Milk is Cindy Sheehan, wondering if all that is really good for her skin. :)

[Jaeger07]

As far as I'm concerned, there's not much controversy about the Iraq war. It's sad, unfortunate, and horrible - but not controversial. It's exactly the picture we should expect to see over and over again if the same dots are connected. Iraq made concessions in order to escape the full consequences of the last war they started. They then refused to comply for over a decade, happily walked across every line drawn in the sand, endured every economic sanction while amassing gold toilets and AK-47's, and amassed billions while the UN helped. For agreements of this sort to mean anything, for the sacrifices of those who fought the previous war to count for something - we must be willing to do what it takes to ensure compliance. The consequences of failing to do that would be far more devastating than anything stemming from following through.


Ha - ha. So this was the reason to go to war now? That Iraq did not comply with agreements.

Sorry to laugh in your face, but you are grasping at straws in this debate.


There is no doubt that the Iraq war started because of fear of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists, and both have been proven to be false.

[IDF_TANKER]

But is it though? Contrary to the fiction that the media and the left has tried so hard to create, Bush is not a king and didn't take the country to war with a disinterested waive of his hand. Do we need to post the long list of statements and votes by democrats- going back to even the early days of the Clinton administration, designed to take us to war?

As far as I'm concerned, there's not much controversy about the Iraq war. It's sad, unfortunate, and horrible - but not controversial. It's exactly the picture we should expect to see over and over again if the same dots are connected. Iraq made concessions in order to escape the full consequences of the last war they started. They then refused to comply for over a decade, happily walked across every line drawn in the sand, endured every economic sanction while amassing gold toilets and AK-47's, and amassed billions while the UN helped. For agreements of this sort to mean anything, for the sacrifices of those who fought the previous war to count for something - we must be willing to do what it takes to ensure compliance. The consequences of failing to do that would be far more devastating than anything stemming from following through.



If there's any circle-jerking going on, I'd say it's the Democrats, who swept into power on an anti-war platform, only to continue to overwhelmingly vote to support the war. There in the center, covered in Congressional Democrat Man-Milk is Cindy Sheehan, wondering if all that is really good for her skin. :)

George Friedman in his book talks about establishing a pro-western democratic state in the area which is the geopolitical pivot of the Middle East (between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia), thus affecting and controlling all the troublesome ME countries. He is talking about America not being very successful in the modern armed conflicts it took part in(Vietnam, Somalia) and the need, to put it blatantly, to bit someone up to make others to fear. He is talking about the need, in particular, to intimidate Saudis in order to prevent them from slipping to Islamist direction. I'm guessing you both connect more or less the same dots.

However, applying theoretic models like this on reality makes you always to ignore more subtle and complicated variables and making simplifying assumptions which not always true, otherwise making the whole equation too complicate to compute and produce any sensible prediction of the outcome when applying this model. In this case George Friedman (as I'm guessing pretty much all people who supported this war, except those who supported it for all other reasons...) ignores cultural and social aspects of Iraq, basically, such a fundamental question as whether it's possible at all to establish the democracy in traditional Islamic ME society locked up with rival tribes and sects in the same artificial geopolitical formation. My dots say - no.

The only hope for success in Iraq is establishing strong ruthless dictatorship, much stronger and more ruthless than Saddam's one (cause it takes much more blood to create an order, than just keeping it), having strong army and ruthless secret police (think KGB). This regime will be necessarily affiliated exclusively only with one of the Iraqi factions, e.g. Sunnies, because only this way it will succeed in maintaining faithful armed forces, which will completely identify their own survival with the survival of the regime they are going to fight for. Only in this traditional ME way, by sword and fire you will able to achieve stability in Iraq. You don't like this solution - GTFO of Iraq and do it fast, other alternatives IMHO are much worse (right now your building Lebanese "democracy", we all know how great it is...).

[matthew.manhorn]

Hi IDF_TANKER i've got a few questions though (I'm ignorant towards ME politics)

If the US coalition force during the Persian Gulf War weren't consist of Arab nations that didn't recognize Israel, would Saddam have launched Scuds on Israel anyway?

Wouldn't Iraq be another Soviet backed "Syria" to Israel if the US hadn't invade them? Was Iran really a bigger threat to Israel than Iraq?

Thanks for your answers!

[IDF_TANKER]

Hi IDF_TANKER i've got a few questions though (I'm ignorant towards ME politics)
What I'm some kind of expert now..?


If the US coalition force during the Persian Gulf War weren't consist of Arab nations that didn't recognize Israel, would Saddam have launched Scuds on Israel anyway?

I'm not sure there is any connection. Saddam hit Israel because of Israel being US ally, not because of Arabs being or not being part of the coalition.


Wouldn't Iraq be another Soviet backed "Syria" to Israel if the US hadn't invade them? Was Iran really a bigger threat to Israel than Iraq?

You know that USSR broke up in 1990, right? (Actually, the cold war started fading out years before, culminating in the collapse of Eastern bloc in 1989.) US goal in this war was exactly the opposite they did in this one - restoring balance and stability in ME, which they successfully did with minimal price. Saddam possessing Kuwait oil fields would become too strong and too close to the American main oil exporter, the Saudis.