Absolutely we are better off. For one thing, Saddam was running a terrorist safe haven second only to Afghanistan. Secondly, no one knew for sure whether Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD's. We do know, per the Duelfer report, Saddam never gave up his plans to develop them. We also know that when he had them before he used them so when he got them again in the future he would have used them the next time we had to fight him. Saddam will never again invade a neighboring country killing hundreds of thousands and millions of people and endangering the oil flows the world economy rests on. He will never again blow up an entire country's oil industry as he did Kuwait's.
All those Iraqi casualties, killed by Sunni revolutionaries, must be accounted as part of the cost of getting rid of the old "tyrannical" government.
Yes, I know there is a totally bogus "study" out which claims 100,000 Iraqis have died in the almost two years since the invasion. I've posted the espose of the study's flaws in Slate elsewhere on SI. But do you remember that before the Iraq war, the same types of folks who are now up in arms over the war were up in arms over the sanctions which it was said were killing massive numbers of Iraqis, mostly babies. Here's an example of the kinds of claims that were batted about pre-war:
www2.gol.com
Can you do the math? The bogus studies condemning sanctions were claiming almost twice as many deaths per year as the current bogus study condemning the war. So which is valid? Did the war actually save lives? Even accepting the bogus study claiming 100,000 deaths. Maybe people should just stop believing anti-American propaganda.
I think time may well prove that both for Iraqis and for the US, Saddam was far from the worst possibility for Iraq.
That's the kind of thing a Bush basher has to have faith in nowadays.
I still think internecine violence is a great possibility. No doubt you will wring your hands and fail to see this as the outgrowth of policies you support, should the magnitude of the violence increase to a level which even you cannot ignore.
Maybe the Iraqis will fight a civil war - Shiites and Kurds against that portion of the Sunnis which can't accept they can no longer dominate the country. I hope not but if it has to happen so be it. We fought a civil war which earned us more casulties than all the other conflicts in our history before and since. Was it worth it? There is no denying it made us a better country. And here is Lincoln's answer to the question:
“The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
..I do object to my country performing them when there is no very certain good outcome. There is never a certain good outcome of anything on earth. You have to do your best as you see it and have faith in God as regards the outcome. In the ME today, there is much reason to be optimistic. To be overly pessimistic is unwarranted.
do you argue that the USSR was not a force for geopolitical stability in its sphere of influence? In its sphere of influence, I recall there were crushings of uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary plus a massive gulag to control internal dissidents. It can be argued that these things weren't of geopolitical importance, I imagine. But the USSR was not content to rule its sphere of influence. It invaded Afghanistan - one of the places its land army could reach. Where its armies couldn't reach it supported tyrants like Kim il Sung and Castro*, and supported revolutionary movements intended to create additional tyrannies hostile to us in central and south America, Africa and Asia.
*In the case of Castro, it put nuclear missiles 90 miles from our border which brought their country and ours to the brink of thermo-nuclear war. A "force for geopolitical stability" wouldn't have done that.
Are you comfortable with the free nuclear material now floating around the world?
I'm not pleased with the idea of free nuclear material floating around the world. Who knows how much of the idea is rooted in reality (do you know more about free nuclear material floating around the world than anyone knew about Iraqi WMD stockpiles? I don't think so.) I am glad the USSR's hundreds of very real nuclear missiles aren't aimed at us. And I'm glad Bush and Putin signed an agreement today to tighten Russian nuclear security. And I'm glad about Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative which I'm sure you are aware of.
Are you pleased with the scientists now for sale? you don't need Russian scientists to make nukes - Pakistan did it without them.
How do you feel about the problems in the republics? What say you to the rise of radical Islam in the former republics? There were problems in the republics before - they just didn't get any press.
How about genocide? Also set in motion by the fall of the USSR. Huh?
Speaking of black and white thinking, you have seemingly convinced yourself the USSR was a great beneficial power making the world safe and boohoo, we are so endangered now that its not here to protect us anymore. I'm sorry, but this is laughable. |
