Featured Was it worth it?

Would you be asking this question if a democrat were in office at the time?

 

Is that a rhetorical question?

It is like Vietnam in that the decision was bi-partisan but the Democrats forgot about that in seeking a domestic political advantage.

Obama retreated from Iraq. Obama should hurry up and retreat from Afghanistan since he is using American troops as cannon fodder.

 

Questions like the op are worthless. We do not know just how far Hussein would have gone with his WMD's. He was willing to attack other sovereign countries. To play what if's is of no value.

 

Ask Iraq's, they have a better view of things.

 

Was it worth losing 38,000 lives in Korea?

N. Korea is still a threat in the region, but S. Korea is definitely better off.


Was it worth losing 58,000 lives in Vietnam? South Vietnam was still taken over by the North and communists killed 3,000,000 SE Asians after they took S. Vietnam.

None were military losses, but the most clearcut military victory of the 3 is Iraq.

None were political victories but the most clearcut political loss was obviously Vietnam.

Arguably, Iraq may have been most worth the cost. A murderous tyrant is gone.

The reason for the question is obvious.

Leftists and Bush haters are still trying to turn Iraq into a loss, both militarily and politically.

 

Probably not.

They now have free elections for leaders. Many of their treasures and antiquities have been returned to the people. The country is being cleaned up after two wars in 15 years.

There has been no civil war in Iraq. Iran did not invade.

We don't have to worry about WMD's in Iraq.

 

The reasons are obvious to all but a leftest or a Bush hater.

The reasons will never be admitted by the same.

It's a waste of time to even discuss it.

So I have a better idea, why don't you tell us why they are all worse off?

BTW I like your description of "smashing military victory", but those are your words. Not mine.

 

Things would be much better except Obama messed everything up trying to rush us out of there.

 

Almost everyone in Washington did, at one time or another.

 

Yes the world is better off and our men and women did not die in vain. Hussein was a cruel dictator and aggressive against other sovereign countries. He needed to be dealt with.

Whatever is going on now does not indicate whether we should have dealt with him. Two different subjects entirely.

 

I noticed you still won't tell us why you so obviously think all are worse off and it wasn't worth the cost.

It's always easier to snipe the opinions of others than it is to put your own out there, isn't it?

I consider that approach to be cowardly and intellectually dishonest.

So , come on, tell us. I can't hardly wait.

 

It's implied in your question, duh.

I'll recommend a documentary: The World Without US by by Mitch Anderson and Jason J. Tomaric. You think you know what is going on in the world, but you don't.

 

Is that all you've got? A lot? Actually , very few, for what was accomplished. And all the Americans, at least, were volunteers. So stop trying to make victims out of them.

That's the problem with your favorite approach. You want everyone to put themselves out there while you take potshots at them.

So what is your answer to the rest of your questions, and why?

I really don't expect an answer. I just want to see how far you will go with this cowardly approach.

 

More dishonesty.

Intelligence agencies from many countries had all came to the same conclusions...Saddam had or was seeking to acquire WMDs. Saddam even went to extremes to convince them they were right.