To: Brumar89 who wrote (96677 ) 2/27/2005 11:13:22 PM From: epicure Read Replies (1) | Respond to So you think we are better off now, after spending billions to invade Iraq to "protect" ourselves from weapons that were not there? Or that we have made ourselves "safer"? Obviously the first reason for the invasion was completely a mistake. If you are hoping to have made the US safer- time will tell on that one. The odds were so far against it making us safer, that it should not have been risked, imo, and I doubt it will prove to have made us safer at all. The money would have been better spent in the US. And the old "tyrannical" governments were at least stable tyrannical governments. We have yet to know what will happen in Iraq once the US leaves. You are probably aware of the enormous number of Iraqis who have been killed both by our troops, and by each other. All those Iraqi casualties, killed by Sunni revolutionaries, must be accounted as part of the cost of getting rid of the old "tyrannical" government. I think time may well prove that both for Iraqis and for the US, Saddam was far from the worst possibility for Iraq. 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.
