Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[jandar]

anyone, answer me this question:


If, in 10 years, peace was prevelant in the Middle East due to us returning Iraq to all of its people (and not just a minority) and the Taliban is still on the run/captured/dismantled, would you believe the war in Iraq was worth it?

state reasons, think with your brain and don't post website links or news articles. Im really curious to see how many people tow the party lines or think for themselves. (me, Im a centrist)




my answer:
yes, peace/democracy is something that is fought and won, not something that comes to those who stand around doing nothing.
A less aggressive Middle East is better for the whole world.

War is not a clean thing, its dirty, nasty and very very unpleasant. But it is needed at times. Leaving Saddam in power would have proved detrimental to the whole world. He wanted control of the entire Middle East if not more. He saw himself as the great Arab Leader. There were no checks and balances in his area. At least we can vote out our government officials.

 

[London Geezer]

Yawn.... oh, i voted NO.

 

[PatrickL]

Could you be more specific? i mean you question is for usa or for the iraqis or for the middle east?

 

[London Geezer]

Oh, and there should have been a "HELL NO!!!!!" button too...

 

[John Reynolds]

my answer:
yes, peace/democracy is something that is fought and won, not something that comes to those who stand around doing nothing.
A less aggressive Middle East is better for the whole world.

My answer was no. And democracy is not something you can just give to a people. They have to want it and fight for it themselves, and that has certainly not been the case in Iraq. And who says Al Qaeda is on the run these days? And until Bush goes after the Saudis, IMO the so-called war on terror is one giant f*cking joke. But due to the myriad business connections between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family, that ain't gonna' happen.

And since when has America had a good record when we directly interfere in other nations?

 

[L233]

What a worthless question. You simply take it for granted that peace, democracy and freedom and <<enter random meaningless political epithet>> will be the result of the war. Dude, what do you think you are? A freaking prophet?

Then you claim that Saddam Hussein's regime was "detrimental to the whole world". Care to substantiate? All I saw was a dictator who was not in the position to be a threat to anyone. His miltiary was so weak that the US could demolish it in a matter of days, he had no WMD and no connections to Al-Quaeda. And I saw the leaders a superpower with the capabilitiy to destroy the world twice over lying and bullying in order to start an unneccessary war.

Now, guess what scares me more?

 

[Tim Murray]

And since when has America had a good record when we directly interfere in other nations?

Well, we had World War 2 (the reconstruction, not the use of atomic weapons). That went well--look at Japan and Germany today.

Bad things when we directly interfere... after WWI, Philippines, just about everything in South America, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs...

But I think we have an even worse record when we indirectly interefere (e.g., the CIA interferes for us). Osama and giving Saddam chemical weapons. A bunch of shining accomplishments right there.

 

[L233]

Well, we had World War 2 (the reconstruction, not the use of atomic weapons). That went well--look at Japan and Germany today.

What exactly did the US reconstruct in Germany and Japan?

 

[John Reynolds]

What exactly did the US reconstruct in Germany and Japan?

Markets for our exports.

 

[London Geezer]

Well, we had World War 2 (the reconstruction, not the use of atomic weapons). That went well--look at Japan and Germany today.

What exactly did the US reconstruct in Germany and Japan?

.... I was gonna say....

 

[epicstruggle]

Could you be more specific? i mean you question is for usa or for the iraqis or for the middle east?

There are alot of players: US,Europe,Iraqis who are either sunnis,kurds,or shiates, Turkey, Middle East, South Pacific Muslim countries, etc, then there are all the terrorist groups, dont forget Israel and Palestine.

Possible peace/stability in Iraq, might foster goodwill for Americans in Iraq. This _could_ lead to growth of truely independent media services. IF women in Iraq can keep their freedoms, then a prosperous Iraq _could_ lead to a better middle east for women. There are ALOT of if's and could's but I dont think much can happen unless the US fixes some of the basic problems in the Israel/Palestine situation.

Was the war worth it. Yes, if only to free the iraqis from such a dispicable tyrant. Are more lives going to be saved because Sadam no longer rules the country with his sons? YES. Will the transition be problem free? NO. Do we wish we had 0 casualties? Yes. Is that reasonable to expect? No.

I had predicted that about 1000 casualties would be lost during the war (et al), currently only 500+ have been lost. So for me, Id say we got off pretty dam cheap. I wonder what kinda casualty estimates the President got, before he approved the war.

Only time will tell whether or not this war was worth it. For some though it never will, and for others(70+% of iraqis) it already is.

later,
epic

 

[horvendile]

What exactly did the US reconstruct in Germany and Japan?

I wasn't going to touch this subject with an arbitrarily long pole, but - doesn't the Marshal help count for anything?

 

[L233]

Don't get me wrong, the USA did a lot of good things in Germany and Japan. There is absolutely _no_ reason to complain. The German population's attitude towards the Americans in particular became soon quite amiable. The Allied occupation of western Germany can be considered a success, there is no doubt about it.

Still, I always cringe when I people credit the US with "reconstruction". The Marshall plan funds were almost exclusively used to buy American grain. The reconstruction was done by the hard work and determination of the post-war generation.

 

[horvendile]

Oh well, if I'm here I may as well vote.
Yes, with the conditions you stated I think it's worth it.
In fact, I would have voted yes on more modest conditions.

I should however point out that those conditions have yet to be met. I favored the war - I didn't know that it was The Right Thing, but I did believe so. I still believe it was, but it may turn out I was wrong.

 

[Tim Murray]

There are ALOT of if's and could's but I dont think much can happen unless the US fixes some of the basic problems in the Israel/Palestine situation.

And that's exactly why the current administration needs to either step up to the plate and actually do something lasting (because Iraq might turn into the next Afghanistan in July) or be voted out of office. I favor the second simply because I don't think that Bush will do jack about Israel.

 

[London Geezer]

The question was: Was it worth the cost?

And i'm sorry, with a fraction of what the USA and the UK spent on the war on Iraq, hunger in Africa would not EXIST. And the HIV/AIDS issue there would greatly benefit too. A fraction of the cost.

How could anyone ignore that and say it was worth it is just beyond me.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Uhm, the question was "Was it worth the cost?" when it should have been "Will it have been worth the cost?".

Shouldn't we wait until the war is over before we start talking about it in the past tense? :|

 

[Tim Murray]

The question was: Was it worth the cost?

And i'm sorry, with a fraction of what the USA and the UK spent on the war on Iraq, hunger in Africa would not EXIST. And the HIV/AIDS issue there would greatly benefit too. A fraction of the cost.

How could anyone ignore that and say it was worth it is just beyond me.

uh, the problem with those problems is that you simply can't throw money at them, which is why they're not solved yet... with regards to hunger, you have to create a distribution network that will exist even in places undergoing civil wars and the like. and the HIV/AIDS one? that's cultural. simply treatnig the symptoms may well be unproductive without significant cultural change, because that would mean that each infected person would have a greater ability to infect more people. a cold and heartless way to view it? yeah, probably, but it's also true.

Iraqi democracy is also a cultural problem, though, and we threw money at it. Bets on how long before it bites us in the ass?

 

[London Geezer]

uh, the problem with those problems is that you simply can't throw money at them, which is why they're not solved yet... with regards to hunger, you have to create a distribution network that will exist even in places undergoing civil wars and the like. and the HIV/AIDS one? that's cultural. simply treatnig the symptoms may well be unproductive without significant cultural change, because that would mean that each infected person would have a greater ability to infect more people. a cold and heartless way to view it? yeah, probably, but it's also true.

Iraqi democracy is also a cultural problem, though, and we threw money at it. Bets on how long before it bites us in the ass?

Just throwing money at the hunger problem, no of course that wouldn't work. But as you said, building infrastructures and a working network to work around the problem needs MONEY. Also, regarding the HIV/AIDS issue: i wasn't talking about provide medicines for the symptoms, rather about all the HIV drugs and treatments that make life better for an HIV positive person. And again, infrastructure int he form of an acceptable health system and hospitals and especially a policy of education towards those people who live there needs MONEY. No one knows how much exactly, but seeing the bill for the war on Iraq, one should wonder what the USA priorities are. Oh wait we have an idea...

In the meantime the situation in Africa and other parts of the world would be SORTED. But no, let's spend billions upon billions on Iraq, that's useful...

I'm not saying the war on Iraq yielded nothing, although i just think that we should have (had) other priorities.

 

[L233]

doesn't the Marshal help count for anything?

The Marshal Plan, in the case of Germany and Austria, wasn't aid, it was a loan that was repaid with full interest within a few years.

Marshal Plan funds made up 3% of the German GNP in 1949, 1.3% in 1950, 1.4% in 1951 and 0.3% in 1952. Germany recieved about $1.4 billion over four years. Repayment started in 1953 and went on til 1962. A total of $3 billion was repaid. In the four years Germany recieved Marshal Plan funding, Germany was required to pay about $5 billion to cover the costs of occupation and forced to export coal worth $1 billion to France and the UK for free.

I think it's a bit rich to extract $6 billion, return a quarter of it as a loan and then claim to have rebuilt the country.