You know, I have the potential to control a huge part of the world's oil supply. My roommate's dog has the potential to control the city of Richmond - and from there, who knows? All she needs is some futuristic gene therapy to give her a mind capable of carrying her evil plans to fruition, and opposable thumbs.
I would suggest that making sure Tiggy does not conquer the world is not a valid reason to start an ongoing war.
Please link me to a source that shows practical gains insofar as economics or security are concerned for the Kurds, between the present day and pre-war Iraq.
America is not safer. The war in Afghanistan would have made America safer, because it would have eliminated already-extant bases of operations and actual resources that had previously been in the control of terrorists and fanatical islamists. Choosing to start a second front without finishing the job in Afghanistan, and choosing to do so in an unprepared and unrealistic way, with no plans for how to make it happen, has allowed terrorism and badness to retain its foothold in Taliban areas and opened up a whole new region for them to get practical experience with operations and what-not in. The Iraqi war did NOTHING GOOD.
Nothing.
If it turns out that we turn it around (read: a miracle happens, and rather than behaving like people, the Iraqis all turn altruistic as fuck, forgive one another, and band together against their common foe (ignoring the fact that at this point they are each other's common foes, because we allowed Al-Qaeda to initiate a sectarian war between the various groups of Iraqis) and Iraq ends up a democracy with a real civil society, security, and social freedoms, then I will TOTALLY apologize to you. And pay you a hundred bucks. Happily. That would be awesome.
But that still wouldn't make it a good idea to have invaded in the first place; it would be making lemonade with the lemons we've currently got due to stupid decision-making, compounded by poor planning, premised on an illogical and retarded world-view on the part of policy-makers.
If you can prove that the Kurds are doing ANY better at all in REAL terms (i.e. actually doing better; the Kurds weren't regularly gassed or shot; those were reactions to events initiated by the Kurds, as far as the trial of Saddam showed, anyways; 99% of the time, 99% of the Kurds, like 99% of the Americans in the US who aren't actively plotting the overthrow of the government, were living just fine) compared to their pre-war existence, then I'll concede that one good thing came out of the war. For a minority. At the expense of the nation as a whole, at the expense of American national security, at the expense of regional security, and - by the time the nation collapses and becomes an anarchic wasteland ruled by warlords - at the expense of the Kurds as well, within a year or two, most likely. But still, something good.
This "Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues."
You linked to an article about how the war has not made us any safer and selectively drew my attention to two paragraphs of speculation at the end?
What about: "n many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and the spreading virus of Islamist extremism."
You linked to an article OVER THREE YEARS OLD to prove that life is better in Iraq?
The part where it says "a harder target" is universal and not just against al queda.
The threat of violence has nothing to do with being safer. Someone could threaten me with a knife but if I'm wearing armor its not an issue. The threat went up but not the danger.
I would suggest that making sure Tiggy does not conquer the world is not a valid reason to start an ongoing war.
Please link me to a source that shows practical gains insofar as economics or security are concerned for the Kurds, between the present day and pre-war Iraq.
America is not safer. The war in Afghanistan would have made America safer, because it would have eliminated already-extant bases of operations and actual resources that had previously been in the control of terrorists and fanatical islamists. Choosing to start a second front without finishing the job in Afghanistan, and choosing to do so in an unprepared and unrealistic way, with no plans for how to make it happen, has allowed terrorism and badness to retain its foothold in Taliban areas and opened up a whole new region for them to get practical experience with operations and what-not in. The Iraqi war did NOTHING GOOD.
Nothing.
If it turns out that we turn it around (read: a miracle happens, and rather than behaving like people, the Iraqis all turn altruistic as fuck, forgive one another, and band together against their common foe (ignoring the fact that at this point they are each other's common foes, because we allowed Al-Qaeda to initiate a sectarian war between the various groups of Iraqis) and Iraq ends up a democracy with a real civil society, security, and social freedoms, then I will TOTALLY apologize to you. And pay you a hundred bucks. Happily. That would be awesome.
But that still wouldn't make it a good idea to have invaded in the first place; it would be making lemonade with the lemons we've currently got due to stupid decision-making, compounded by poor planning, premised on an illogical and retarded world-view on the part of policy-makers.
If you can prove that the Kurds are doing ANY better at all in REAL terms (i.e. actually doing better; the Kurds weren't regularly gassed or shot; those were reactions to events initiated by the Kurds, as far as the trial of Saddam showed, anyways; 99% of the time, 99% of the Kurds, like 99% of the Americans in the US who aren't actively plotting the overthrow of the government, were living just fine) compared to their pre-war existence, then I'll concede that one good thing came out of the war. For a minority. At the expense of the nation as a whole, at the expense of American national security, at the expense of regional security, and - by the time the nation collapses and becomes an anarchic wasteland ruled by warlords - at the expense of the Kurds as well, within a year or two, most likely. But still, something good.
Link me.
Reply
Read the last two paragraphs.
This "Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues."
From Here
Reply
What about: "n many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and the spreading virus of Islamist extremism."
You linked to an article OVER THREE YEARS OLD to prove that life is better in Iraq?
Jesus.
Reply
The threat of violence has nothing to do with being safer. Someone could threaten me with a knife but if I'm wearing armor its not an issue. The threat went up but not the danger.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment