THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

Very funny post Asherman, great diversion.

I wish to say this.
USA's future president's first word should be Sorry.
Otherwise changing the jackey will not make the horse a mighty winner

Go on smart guys...try to convince me of why it was all worth it.

Was it worth it, you aske?

1) 4,000 U.S soldiers lives To bring security to that troubled region, liberty to the Iraqi People from a brutal dictatorship, and to defeat the Radical Islamic Movement, the cost in U.S. military casualties could be 10,000 and still be worth while. No one is pleased with even a single casualty, but wars aren't bloodless affairs conducted over a cup of Starbucks. Were the dead at Shiloh or Gettysberg worth it? Were the casualties suffered on "D" Day worth it? How about the marines who died at the Chosin Reservoir? One always hopes to constrain the cost blood cost of violent conflict, but bloodless victories are exceedingly rare. So the short answer is: Yes.

2) Thousands of lives of our allied fighters (UK, Europe...) The same answer to this item as above. So the short answer is: Yes.

3) Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and millions displaced Again the same answer as above. How much blood is liberty and freedom from despotic rule worth? Do you believe we should not have fought the War for Independence because women and children were burned alive in churches with the doors nailed shut? So the short answer is: Yes.

4) Billions of U.S dollars wasted Well I don't agree that the money spent in fighting Radical Islamic Terrorism wasted. Our military has killed and tied down countless fanatics who would otherwise be free to plot further terrorism in Europe and the United States. In a war of attrition, never a pretty or easy contest, we are winning. So the short answer is: Yes.

5) Possibility of U.S recession Whatever state the American ecomomy is in, it isn't because of our military spending to prosecute a war we didn't start. The real estate crash is a result of easy credit and questionable loans given to people who weren't good credit risks to begin with. This item is so irrelevant to our Iraqi involvement that no answer is possible without in some small measure legitimizing nonsense.

6) World wide anti-Americanism Those folks around the world who don't like us today, didn't like us before 9/11 either. Some whose friendship and support we might have expected, found it more profitable to stand back and let Uncle Sam carry the burden ... again. The radical left around the world has never been the friend of the United States where competition and individualism trumps the idealized social good. Much of the Islamic population of Southern Asia have long been disaffected by the infidels of the West, and their efforts to destroy Israel have time and again been defeated leaving them only terrorism and murder as an option. So the short answer is: Yes.

7) The down fall of the Republican party. What? At this moment, the future of the GOP is bright. The Democrats led by their radical left wing seem determined to run another suicidal Presidential campaign. Before the end of summer they will be lucky not to have spawned a split-away third party made up of disgruntled Democrats whose personal favorite didn't get the nod. Sen. Obama, an inexperienced young man in a hurry with strong ties to the a racially bigoted church, may get the nomination but his chances in the general election aren't very good. Sen. Clinton may get the nomination, but only at the cost of losing the Obama True Believers, and she's no prize in the first place. What we are seeing, I believe is a shift toward the center of the Republican Party from its more extreme wing. The Democrats seem determined to run against Bush, and the least influential branches of the GOP. I really doubt that the U.S. involvement in Iraq will have more than a minor effect on the future of the Republican Party.

8) World wide distrust of U.S government How is this different from your item 6, above. Seems redundant to me, and my answer here is the same as above in item 6.

9) World wide anti-antisemitism (Folks think Iraq war is for Israel) That's a bold assertion, though it certainly does seem like the sort of propaganda that the Radical Islamic Movement and Iran are so fond of making. I'm also sure that the assertion would find some resonance among the under-educated and embittered portions of the population in Southern Asia. It isn't true, but then propaganda doesn't have to be "true" to be effective, does it? This is irrelevant to whether I believe our involvement in the region is worth it. So the short answer is: Yes.

10) Nuclearisation of middle east (Iranians hoping not to be Iraqed) Our problems with Iran far predate our involvement in either Gulf War. U.S. support of the Shaw of Iran as a client during the Cold War was expedient, but in the long run turned out to be a bad idea. Iran in overthrowing the Shaw, declared unending war against the United States. They invaded out embassy, killed members of our diplomatic mission and held the rest hostage for most of Jimmy Carter's administration. Faced with a tougher Republican President, they released the hostages ASAP. Iran has threatened the shipping in the Hormuz Straights repeatedly, and is doing so today. Iran didn't just start urging genocidal war against Israel in reaction to American involvement in Iraq, they've been doing that since Carter's administration. They've been shopping for nuclear weapons on the world's black markets almost from the beginning, and only began their native nuclear program when they were unsuccessful. So the short answer is that Iran's threatening posture is irrelevant, and their support for the "insurgency" is just a by-product of the venom they already had in abundent supply.

11) Massive increase of terrorism since Iraq invasion. Really? How many terrorist attacks inside CONUS since 2001? I keep a reasonably close eye on reported terrorist incidents around the world, and I don't see a great increase in activity. The number of attacks within Iraq and Afghanistan go up and down as the RIM and their associates seek to achieve by murder what they can not achieve in open battle. So, though I think you are mistaken, the answer is ... Yes, I still believe that our involvement was both necessary and has been by-and-large effective.

12) Finally, making 1.5 billion (Muslims) enemies for at least 200 years.
How do you come up with these things Zippo? Most of us have trouble predicting what our children will be thinking/feeling a year from now, but you seem so confident that 200 years from now there will be 1.5 million Muslims who are mortal enemies of the United States because we freed Iraq from Saddam? Not all Muslims are radicals who would like to force their religion on the rest of the world and return us to the 7th or 8th century. If there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today, not more than a billion of them live in Southern Asia... possibly even less. Of that billion, only a fraction are strong supporters of Radical Islam. That comes, maybe to a million people in all. Of those only a fraction will take up arms, and that number is probably be less than a 100,000. Reasonably, we can estimate that the enemy has between 10,000 and 100,000 individuals in the whole of Southern Asia who are actively involved in "fighting" the infidel. They have made this a war of attrition, and they are losing badly so long as the U.S. government doesn't surrender because ...

IT ISN'T WORTH IT.

So the short answer is: Yes, it is worth it.

Zippo wrote:

Go on smart guys...try to convince me of why it was all worth it.

You yourself said: "World wide anti-semitism (Folks think Iraq war is for Israel)"

Doesn't that make it worth it for you?

Be honest.