Has the invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place?

Perhaps it has made some Americans feel safer, but all indications are that the war has been a great recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.
Which was predicted.

Yes and no. I think that the invasion of Iraq has:

Caused more militancy, and opened the door for more recruitment of terrorists.

Gotten rid of a Hitler like monster who has destroyed many of Iraq's citizens.

Allowed Iraq to change direction from dictatorship towards democracy.

Gave the US a staging ground to fight terrorists in the lands all around Iraq in the Middle East.

Cause a polarization both within the US, and between the US and other countries.

So, I do believe that it is a mixed bag. If one looks only in the short haul, it might seem that we have caused turmoil, that might fly back in our faces. In the long term, I think it was a good move.

Pheonix
You talk about the long run. What about today, tomorrow, next year. Are we safer or in more danger from terrorist attacks? The invasion of Iraq has brought thousands to the ranks of Al Qaeda. In addition IMO it has strengthend Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin to the extent that he has become a threat to the stability of the Saudi Arabian regime.

The war did meant the end of Hussein, the cruel dictator, but did it really make Iraq a safer place?

Rick d'Israeli
I anything it made it more dangerous by strengthening the hand of the terrorists. Bush in addition diverted resources needed in Afghanistan to fight and destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban allowing them to regroup.

How does the loss of a major source of income and weapons strengthen the hand of the terrorists?

In numbers McGentrix.

No

1) fed the worst of the radical muslim paranoid fears
2) drawn attention and resources away from more
dangerous problems such as north Korea
3) damaged civil liberties at home

Other than the personal well being of Iraqi's, who have benefited from the removal of a self evident bad character. I can think of no advantage this war as conferred on anyone.

If you are speaking about Afghanistan. There was a diversion of necessary manpower as well. We were attacked by terrorists and were allegedly fighting a war against terror. It took a back seat to the misadventure in Iraq.

Afghanistan was handed over to the UN under the pretense that they could handle the situation. As has been demonstrated, they have failed miserably. So, because the UN has failed to keep the Taliban under control in Afghanistan, the US is somehow responsible?!

McG

The men and material were diverted before the NATO take over. WE with our diversion of forces let the genii out of the bottle. You seem to have adopted the Bush ideology of "who me, not me" It was the other guy's fault.

The UN ISAF had control of Afghanistan May 2002. Well before the invasion of Iraq.

That may be the case and if it is I stand corrected. However, American forces were diverted which were needed to fight the war in Afghanistan. They needed to have stayed there and finished the job. How much fight does NATO have without American troops and support.

In the short term, I think no, the world is not a safer place. Savage beasts are always more dangerous when confronted, opposed, cornered. But reading accounts of 'travel alerts' for the summer, the prognosis for the Olympics in Greece, etc., the conventional wisdom is that terrorists avoid places where people are security conscious and prepared for them and go after the innocent in unexpected, unprepared places.

The more people confront and oppose them, the fewer places the terrorists will have to do their violence. If good people refuse to accept terrorism as in any way justified or to be appeased rather than condemned, it shouldn't take too long to virtually eliminate all terrorists or they will give it up. Whichever way it goes is fine with me.

It's kind of like the Truman administration making the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Many Japanese citizens were killed. But how many lives were saved because the hostilities were not dribbled out over the next many months or years?

I think if we stand firm now and demand that terrorists shall not be allowed to have their way, shall not dictate policy, shall not prevail in any agenda by targeting innocent men, women, and children for unconscionable carnage, the world will be far safer than it was before and many lives will be saved.

I don't think it made us any safer because we were never in any threat from Iraq.



Saddam gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers in which case Israel was the one who should have went to war with Iraq.

We cant just invade a country to give us a staging ground to fight terrorist. That is just plain wrong.

We already went to war with Saddam during the first gulf war to stop him from invading kuwait. Many of his crimes were committed back then. So it is illogical to use the same crimes that he already committed and in which we already went to war over to justify another war. That would be the same as punishing a child twice for the same offense. Saddam was being contained, Kay said as much in his report. There was no build up of new WMD, the inspections report said as much. There was no reason to go to war and it did not make us any safer and it won't in the long run because the country is not ours to organize according to our needs.

Do ya'll honestly think that the Iraqi's are going to turn to the US against the rest of the middle east? They already hate us and want us to leave them alone now that we have gotten rid of Saddam for them. In fact they want us to turn Saddam back over to them now. So who knows what that is all about.

I guess what I am trying in my own inarticulate fashion to say is that we are not puppet masters and the rest of the world are not puppets on a string there to do our bidding. The Iraqis will resent that and will rebel which is what they already are doing; even the ones who were originally grateful to the US for getting rid of Saddam Hussien. In every way we have failed in the reconstruction of Iraq so we can't say that at least we gave the Iraqi's a better a country than they had before. I mean they are dying in droves, they have no electricity, they are getting picked up left and right and thrown into prisons only to be abused and humiliated before the world. Why would they ever appreciate that?

In the end everything might turn out all right for them, they may even become a democratic state; but I honestly don't think they are going to thank us for it so we won't have a friendly ally in the middle east. So even if that justification was justifiable it won't happen. (IMO)

NO NO NO

Foxy



Say what? Please explain.

The bomb was overwhelming force and it stopped the war. It cost many lives, but it saved many lives by stopping the war. Overwhelming force convinced the Japanese that continuing hostilities was futile and counterproductive. And now the Japanese are some of the most peaceful, productive people on earth.

I favor the same approach against terrorists. Overwhelming force that stops them in their tracks until they decide continuing hostilities is futile and counterproductive.

Foxy


True. But how can you possibly relate that to the invasion of Iraq.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what the administration failed to do when it diverted it's resources away from Afghanistan.