Iraq War making us safer?

[newfant]

Iraq still appears to be a bottomless pit of terror and
despair:

"Fighters loyal to militant leader Abu Musab Zarqawi asserted control over the key Iraqi border town of Qaim on Monday, killing U.S. collaborators and enforcing strict Islamic law, according to tribal members, officials, residents and others in the town and nearby villages.

...

Many of the towns along the river have been subject to domination by foreign-led fighters, despite repeated Marine offensives in the area since May. Residents and Marines have described insurgents escaping ahead of such drives, and returning when the offensives end.

...

In Baghdad, insurgents launched a dawn attack on the Interior Ministry, killing two police officers, officials said. Other political violence Monday in Baghdad killed at least 13 civilians, the Associated Press reported."

link to story

I hope we make it through this coming 9/11 anniversary without a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack at this time would be truly devasting. After its handling of this hurricane disaster, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security do not inspire confidence so I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about what might happen on the 9/11 anniversary.

[Broken Glass Can]

I thought the Iraq issue was dead. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

We haven't had a thread in days.

Consider this: We would be worse off against world terror without our efforts in Iraq, so on net the Iraq effort was worth it and is making us safer.

Plus the lives of people in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries have improved, and we should not dismiss the well being of our fellow world citizens.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We would be worse off against world terror without our efforts in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right!

Without the invasion, let's see: There would not be an Islamic Constitution over Iraq; there would be no Shia clerics ruling the country; there would be equal rights for women; there would be no thousands of terrorists/insurgents up in arms in Iraq; there would be no terrorist activities around the world related to the Iraq War (Madrid, London); there would be fewer "points of reference" for radical Muslim propagands; and many other things.

All bad, according to the Looney Right.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the Iraq issue was dead. We haven't had a thread in days.

[/ QUOTE ]
I rather think you are subconsciously trying to write about Iraqi dead. Or American dead in Iraq. "We haven't had a dead in days."

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Without the invasion, let's see: There would not be an Islamic Constitution over Iraq; there would be no Shia clerics ruling the country; there would be equal rights for women

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, I didn't realize how much better off they were with Saddam.

[BadgerAle]

What bothers me the most is not whether Iraqis and Afgans are better off now or then (this is arguable, and it will only be revealled in time- At the moment i'd rather be in sadam's iraq), but whether the US-led coalition has tried the best it can to improve the lives of the people of these countries. It seems to me that in Afganistan this hasn't happened- that the US would rather leave them in a mess and divert its money to invading iraq.
This shows how far down the list of objectives improving the lives of foreigners is to the Bush government.

[Cyrus]

You folks are sometimes just too obvious.

You write, quite inanely, "We would be worse off against <font color="blue"> world terror</font> without our efforts in Iraq."


And as soon as you are challenged, you respond with a change of subject : "Wow, I didn't realize how much better off [the Iraqis] were <font color="blue"> with Saddam </font>."

You're fast but not that fast.

[FishHooks]

You know whats funny. These liberals cry about the tiny freedoms that are being taken away from the patriot act to protect our security then they go and say yea I would rather be under Saddam's regime today. If that's not hypocracy than I dont know what is.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
These liberals cry about the tiny freedoms that are being taken away from the patriot act to protect our security then they go and say yea I would rather be under Saddam's regime today.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be under some sort of hallucination.

The point that yer fellow conservative Broken Glass Can made was that the war in Iraq made the world safer from terror. And when it was pointed out to him that it most certainly DID NOT, he changed tack and started mumbling about Iraqis better off without Hussein!

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not hypocricy than I dont know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the anti-war crowd is doing is "being accurate and consistent". What you guys are doing is a Chubby Checker dance.

[BadgerAle]

[ QUOTE ]
You know whats funny. These liberals cry about the tiny freedoms that are being taken away from the patriot act to protect our security then they go and say yea I would rather be under Saddam's regime today. If that's not hypocracy than I dont know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone said this exactly, i said ,that in terms of safety, i would rather be in pre-war iraq than post war. It seems a common tactic here to pick out something only vaguely relevent to the point being argued that could be taken in a certain context and use it as a suitable response despite it not addressing much in particular.

[nicky g]

Noone would rather Saddam was back in charge in and of itself. Noone wants to put him in charge. The point is whether the reasons given and the benefits from the war outweigh the costs of the war. Saying anti-war protestors preferred Saddam in charge is like saying you prefer Chinese communists to be in power than democrats because you don't support going to war to topple them. There are costs and repercussions involved.