Was it worth it, or not?

[Maeve_Mari]

I saw a poll this morning, one of several post-innaguration polls on approval rating, issue priority, assessment of war in Iraq and one struck me as results I'd like to see how Fencing.net compared to the national poll. There is another poll question I would really like to see the results for, but requires a different polling tool than the one we have available... so until I figure out how to produce a tool to measure results on my other question...

Here's the question:
All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was worth the entry to war, or not? When you answer, select if you you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

[jeff]

I will temporize: Based on current situation, definitely not worth it. A regional problem is now a global source of dispute and mistrust, it's generated tremendous hatred, and thousands of lives have been lost.

However, if this eventually turns out to create a relatively democratic, peaceful society in Iraq that shows an alternative to Middle East despotism (fill in here the other talking points for the proponents of the war), leading to widespread peace in that region, then ultimately it will have proven to be a good thing. I cannot pretend to be so wise or such a predictor of the future to say whether that consequence will or will not happen. My opinion is that the odds are far against this, but would be thrilled to be shown decisively wrong.

[achilleus]

I agree with Jeff. It depends on the outcome, which is very far away.

Based on the reason's the administration used for going to war, no.

Having heard other knowledgeable people (In particular a ex-CIA leader) speak about why succeeding (setting up a democracy) in Iraq is crucial, it made sense. The guy also spoke about how such a task would most likely take 10 years to complete.

Although his reasons made sense, I realize that never has a revolution worked when another country forces it. I also wonder if there might have been a better way of going about it.

So, really it's all about the outcome. If a democracy thrives in Iraq, stabilizes the region, and in turn lowers terrorism, it was great.

That's not happening now, and doesn't seem like it will ever happen. Then again, 10 years is a long way off. I'd feel much better about it if I had more confidence in the administration.

[Calder]

I am so sorry to be putting this down...but like it or not I am an American. When I think about the number of fathers and husbands over in Iraq fighting for something that is NOT their own government I cant help but wonder if their lives are worth the Iraqui peoples freedom? I know its selfish, but at a certain point a nation has to turn its focus inwards, regardless of the problems that currently exist outside of its borders. this doesnt make one of our citizens, the UK's citizens, Australias citizens or any other coalition nations citizens worth the Iraqui's freedom, safety or liberty to them, as individuals. A mother now raising her kids on her own because her husband who died in Iraq most likely wont give a crap about wether or not someone gets to vote in a free election in Iraq when compared with loosing her husband. For heavens sake, I think the time has come for not only us, but the UK, AUS, and every other nation to just say screw you guys, not one of our peoples lives are worth four of yours...Im sorry, I know this isnt a proper world view, but I dont like seeing Brits or Aussies die any more than Americans, (and in some cases less) because our president decided that he felt it best for "blessed nations" to rid the world of evil...its getting relaly close to the time when I start to question wether or not they deserve our charity, and if they dont want it, or if there is part of the population/religion/culture/etc that doesnt, its not worth a single life to try and make them see it our way. 911 sucked I know...but for craps sake...welcome to the 21st century US....Europes been dealing with terrorism for years and it doesnt give a license to invade another country and start a war based on an individuals personal beliefs...I dont care how much of a scumbag Hussein might have been, hes not worth one single coalition life.
I live in a part of the country that does a lot of military ceremony. there are a lot of active duty families with loved ones in Iraq, and nothing makes me more sick then seeing a British, Irish, Scottish or Australian flag representing a fallen soldier from the war in Iraq. It makes me embarrassed to be American. Our people dont deserve to die for theirs (the Iraqui) and neither do any of the poeple of these other nations. You dont like your country? Rise up and change it...the Brits did it, the Aussies did it, The Irish Did it, the Scotts did it, and sure as hell the Americans did it. The Iraquis dont need another nation to run their revolution for them. If their to lazy to fight against opporession then why the hell are we doing it for them?
"Waaaahhhhh...Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who gassed his own people..." well quit your whinning and fight him then...dont come crying to the UN because your to lazy to fight your own war, and dont waste another one of our lives on trying to establish your sandbox as a legitimate nation...do it yourself...we all did.

[Soldier]

I am so sorry to be putting this down...but like it or not I am an American. When I think about the number of fathers and husbands over in Iraq fighting for something that is NOT their own government I cant help but wonder if their lives are worth the Iraqui peoples freedom? I know its selfish, but at a certain point a nation has to turn its focus inwards, regardless of the problems that currently exist outside of its borders. this doesnt make one of our citizens, the UK's citizens, Australias citizens or any other coalition nations citizens worth the Iraqui's freedom, safety or liberty to them, as individuals. A mother now raising her kids on her own because her husband who died in Iraq most likely wont give a crap about wether or not someone gets to vote in a free election in Iraq when compared with loosing her husband. For heavens sake, I think the time has come for not only us, but the UK, AUS, and every other nation to just say screw you guys, not one of our peoples lives are worth four of yours...Im sorry, I know this isnt a proper world view, but I dont like seeing Brits or Aussies die any more than Americans, (and in some cases less) because our president decided that he felt it best for "blessed nations" to rid the world of evil...its getting relaly close to the time when I start to question wether or not they deserve our charity, and if they dont want it, or if there is part of the population/religion/culture/etc that doesnt, its not worth a single life to try and make them see it our way. 911 sucked I know...but for craps sake...welcome to the 21st century US....Europes been dealing with terrorism for years and it doesnt give a license to invade another country and start a war based on an individuals personal beliefs...I dont care how much of a scumbag Hussein might have been, hes not worth one single coalition life.
I live in a part of the country that does a lot of military ceremony. there are a lot of active duty families with loved ones in Iraq, and nothing makes me more sick then seeing a British, Irish, Scottish or Australian flag representing a fallen soldier from the war in Iraq. It makes me embarrassed to be American. Our people dont deserve to die for theirs (the Iraqui) and neither do any of the poeple of these other nations. You dont like your country? Rise up and change it...the Brits did it, the Aussies did it, The Irish Did it, the Scotts did it, and sure as hell the Americans did it. The Iraquis dont need another nation to run their revolution for them. If their to lazy to fight against opporession then why the hell are we doing it for them?
"Waaaahhhhh...Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who gassed his own people..." well quit your whinning and fight him then...dont come crying to the UN because your to lazy to fight your own war, and dont waste another one of our lives on trying to establish your sandbox as a legitimate nation...do it yourself...we all did.

I'll remember this post of yours when you're getting mugged on the street.

At least you're honest.

[Rogue]

I'll remember this post of yours when you're getting mugged on the street.

Really.
If I ignore the bad things they can't ever hurt me, can they?

[Soldier]

[img src=http://www.fun-meter.com/images/cs42_med.jpg]

We salute thee, Calder.

[Soldier]

http://www.fun-meter.com/images/cs42_med.jpg

We salute thee, Calder

[Capt. Slo-mo]

And yet, in his own ostrich-like fashion, Calder has a bit of a point.

Saddam was fairly well marginalized at the point where invasion was being seriously considered. Bin Laden was still playing Whack-A-Mole in the caves of Afghanistan. Even back then when I foolishly believed the Bush administration's assertions that Saddam HAD WMDs, I thought it was a serious dilution of attention and resources from the hunt for Bin Laden and the justified attempts to root out all vestiges of Al Queda.

We could just as easily have taken another year or two to finish the job on Bin Laden and the people who orchestrated 9-11, and then looked at the board to see who next presented a clear and present danger.

Instead, we have a bloody, expensive mess. Bin Laden can still makes tapes to direct his minions. We have re-elected a Commander in Chief who wants to stay the course for round 2, and can't seem to admit things haven't worked out as planned.

*sigh*

[Soldier]

If he were to make an argument like yours, I could accept it. If he were speaking of only one instance, I could accept it. Instead, he seems to be aruing complete isolationism, so that we do not "waste" any expense on any other country. This is not acceptable.

[mrbiggs]

Calder, your post is too long to be worth quoting. Suffice it to say that I'm responding to your comment to the effect that the Iraqis should rebel for themselves, as the Americans did.

The problem with internal revolutions are twofold. First, there are many, many casualities. This is because the rebels are usually fewer in number, yet less well-equiped. (This is assuming the army stays loyal to the government). Secondly, a natural rebellion could put anyone into power. Fidel Castro, for example. It is much safer in terms of the new government, and causes less casualties, to invade with a modern army, like our own.

You also say that our soldiers aren't fighting for something important. I think they are, and I assume that most of them do, too. They're fighting to protect the people of Iraq. You might not think that that's worth dying for, but many of them beleive that freedom is worth sacrificing your life for, even if the freedom granted is not for you, your friends, or your descendants. The fact that the cause they're fighting for is not directly related to them just enhances my opinion of their morals.

[Phoenix]

I am a very proud American who very much loves the military and what they do for me and for my country. We all thought that Saddam was a threat and a lot of people didn't want to have him as a threat anymore. But things got sticky and we saw that there really wasn't any WMDs. But we have uncovered many other things. The torture, the restriction on religious beliefs, women being raped by Saddam's son just because they were pretty, and many more things that would make this post longer. Saddam's regime had the country by the throat, suffercating it's freedom to live a normal life. Iraq's have tried to fight him, but they just end up in mass graves, never to be heard from again. Sometimes, Calder, revolutions need help from other countries. The French helped us in our revolution and so did German mercenaries.

Things right now are looking not that bright, but war and violence aren't peaceful and until we start working together and not bash each other, then the sooner this situation can become better. I talk about everyone in the world just playing this game of good and evil allies and stuff. It gets really annoying. Yes, there are no WMDs, but you can at least say that they are better off without a freak like him and wish the Iraq's a better future. Working for a better future is the key. Sometimes, I look at the news and think, "Where did the peace go and the strive for a better future." But I know that there are people out there who are trying to make this world a better place. All it needs is time. People want "instant gratification" these days, but a country's needs aren't going to be solved in a few months, espically if we just took away their government that they have had for around 50 years.

[Soldier]

...the German mercenaries, called Hessians, were hired by the British.

[Phoenix]

...the German mercenaries, called Hessians, were hired by the British.

oops.... Dang. I totally forgot.

But we still had the French help us

[jBirch]

I heard it put that it is the right of the people to depose a tyrant and that the king serves at the pleasure of the people.

The key is that it is the peoples' right, not ours as a self-interested foreign entity. It is also their test as a nation and a people. Each of our western nations had to grow from what was an ancient monarchy to what is a functioning democracy. We did so through violent, semi-violent and peaceful means. Who would have thought that the colonists could have stood up to the mighty British Empire?

Agreed that an internal revolution would most likely be bloody and could install someone like Fidel as president. However, the French revolution led to Napoleon's empire before giving way to a proper republic. All of our democracies had their birth in that noble event and to forget that tyranny is one likely outcome of rebellion that we managed to avoid is to denigrate our noble ancestors. It is the true test of virtue when the mantle of power is fitted to a ruler's neck. Remember, Washington was offered a monarchy.

That the soldiers who were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a noble job does not mean that it was a noble idea to invade in the first place. To abandon the populace now would be an even worse mistake then the initial invasion, agreed. However, it does not justify the initial theft of identity that we imposed on them. Especially in light of the fact that they were not the threat to us we thought them to be.

How can a people be free if we impose what we consider freedom on them? Regardless of how right or virtuous our actions are, in our hurbris we have taken away from the Iraqi people that most fundamental of things that defines a state: its self-determination.

I see the whole problem of Iraq (and similar situations) much like I see the problem of helping a kid with their homework: you can teach them how to do the problems and help them with the effort or you can solve the problems yourself and let them take the A+.

[Soldier]

So...was it worth it?

[Rogue]

(snip)

I see the whole problem of Iraq (and similar situations) much like I see the problem of helping a kid with their homework: you can teach them how to do the problems and help them with the effort or you can solve the problems yourself and let them take the A+.

I think the Iraqi Nat'l Guardsmen, police officers, the poll workers, the interim administrators and random civilians who have been murder by suicide bombers, IED's, morters, rockets, etc., would claim they were doing their own homework, not having it done for them.

Let's not forget Sadam was also a terrorist enabler.

[telkanuru]

Let's not forget Sadam was also a terrorist enabler.

Two things. First, what the heck is a 'terrorist enabler'? Second, if you mean 'Saddam supported terrorists', not only were the links between him and bin Ladin not valid, you claimed that the current administration never said there were links on a previous thread. If you mean he supported Hammas (sp?), I would say that's hardly unique to the Arab world, and that I don't hear a vast public outcry against Saudi Arabia.


Solution to terrorism:

rm -rf /bin/ladin

[jeff]

rm -rf /bin/ladin

That little computer pun will be a "huh?" to most readers.

They say Unix is user-friendly; it's just awfully particular who its friends are...

[Rogue]

Two things. First, what the heck is a 'terrorist enabler'? Second, if you mean 'Saddam supported terrorists', not only were the links between him and bin Ladin not valid, you claimed that the current administration never said there were links on a previous thread. If you mean he supported Hammas (sp?), I would say that's hardly unique to the Arab world, and that I don't hear a vast public outcry against Saudi Arabia.


Solution to terrorism:

rm -rf /bin/ladin

ter·ror·ist n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.


en·abler
Pronunciation: i-'nA-bl&r, -b&l-&r
Function: noun
: one that enables another to achieve an end;

Really Telk, do I have to look up all unfamiliar words for you?


How many times does it have to be repeated? At least one more I suppose.
Sadam/911 no evidence nor was there any claim made by the Bush admin.
Sadam/terrorism- YES evidence to support this claim that was made by the Bush Admin. and substantiated, in the 911 report and, IIRC, the Volker (sp) report.
Respectfully, we have beat this dead horse enough, without changing any minds, and I shant be discussing it further at this time.

*edit* Since I'm not wanting to discuss that particular topic, maybe I should not have made that post script to my earlier reply.