3 ms·

And for what? Today, Iraq is struggling to rebuild itself. Iran and ISIS remain a serious threat. The Americans hoped to build a Jeffersonian republic in the he

by causi 4y ago

And for what? Today, Iraq is struggling to rebuild itself. Iran and ISIS remain a serious threat. The Americans hoped to build a Jeffersonian republic in the heart of the Middle East, and failed. The whole thing seems like a horrible, tragic mistake. I disagree. This is a bold statement for someone who left Iraq fourteen years ago and never went back. Probably the current regime is better than Saddam. Is it so much better it was worth two trillion dollars and half a million lives? Is it so much better the rise of and fight against ISIS was worth it? I would like to hear the perspective of someone who lives there.

miroljub 4y ago
> This is a bold statement for someone who left Iraq fourteen years ago and never went back. Probably the current regime is better than Saddam. Is it so much better it was worth two trillion dollars and half a million lives? Is it so much better the rise and fight against ISIS was worth it? I would like to hear the perspective of someone who lives there. You don't need to be "someone living there" to answer this question. Just imagine half a million people in your state got killed by some foreign invader, and try to answer for yourself would it be wort it.
- bombcar 4y ago
  > The number of soldiers who died between 1861 and 1865, generally estimated at 620,000, is approximately equal to the total of American fatalities in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, combined. Was the US Civil War "worth it"? I suspect the current answer is yes. Was the Iraq thing as pertinent or powerful as the civil war? I lean toward no, but I don't have detailed information.
- causi 4y ago
  Just imagine half a million people in your state got killed by some foreign invader Half a million people were not killed by a foreign invader. They were killed as a result of a foreign invader destroying the existing power structure. The number actually killed by coalition troops is a small fraction of the total.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    Ok. Good to know they are not killed by a foreign invader. It’s just that their deaths are caused by a foreign invasion. Good, I guess citizens of the invading countries can now sleep well.
mc32 4y ago
The world is not clear-cut black and white. Few are completely bad or completely good. Maybe no-one is. Sanguinely, the world is realpolitik and the good must do some bad to increase good. Also the bad do some good in order that they may continue to do bad. On balance was it good? It's an open question. Should the world have let Saddam initiate an Iraq-Iran War II? Was he bluffing? We don't know -he's dead. Maybe countries, like siblings, need to duke it out sometimes. Many years ago there were people calling for Bush (and maybe Obama) to be arrested by the ICC. Bush and Obama are rehabilitated and now there is a more immediate foe who is now to be arrested and rendered to the ICC. Still, we could benefit from examining and have a congressional inquiry into the matter with consequences so that future presidents think twice before committing to war so easily. Then again, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility to declare war, and allows presidents lots of latitude to engage the military in "not war near wars" which are wars in all but name. If they really meant it, they would take that responsibility back. It's more about degrees of good vs degrees of bad. There is no clear-cut good guy and we have to live with that. There are people who are bothered by the duality.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > Bush and Obama are rehabilitated I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him, they've just added more people to the front of the list.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Maybe in theory, in practice anything moved down the list basically is not on a list.
  - newaccount2023 4y ago
    > I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him they did after he trash talked Trump apparently saying "grab her by the p----y" is worse than starting two wars
    - 4y ago
pjc50 4y ago
It's great that they actually found a victim of the war to speak up, but of course he has to be speaking _in favor_ of the war. If he hadn't put that ridiculous "I disagree" after the obviously true explanation of the failure, this article would not have been published.
hotz 4y ago
[dead]
- throwway120385 4y ago
  It might seem like all Americans are totally fine with invasions, but you have to remember that we form a new government every 2 years and we replace our executive usually every 8 years unless you do something that incenses a lot of Americans. You paint with a pretty broad brush because you're totally ignoring the history of protest for each of these wars. The fact is we're divided as a nation by whether we're comfortable with imperialism. But we're also allowed by law to be divided, which is a big difference.
- beebmam 4y ago
  When I read comments like this, I have a hard time understanding how people come to such wide conclusions. You do realize there's an enormous percentage of Americans who do have empathy for those that suffer from their country's actions? It's hard to not simply dismiss comments like this as dishonest, given that this analysis decontextualizes these deaths. What would the consequences be if the US did not help the UN in protecting Korea from a war of aggression? What would the consequences be if the US didn't play a major role in ending European empires post WW2? What would be the consequences for Europe if the US didn't wage a cold war against an aggressive Soviet Union? No one can truly know.
cudgy 4y ago
The going criticism of Sadaam was that he had killed 10,000 people during his reign (as a CIA backed dictator I may add). Even the most US fanboy supported reports admit the US committed more deaths in the first week of the war; many times that 10k over the course of the war. Which regime would rather live under if you were a normal Iraqui?

by causi 4y ago

miroljub 4y ago

> This is a bold statement for someone who left Iraq fourteen years ago and never went back. Probably the current regime is better than Saddam. Is it so much better it was worth two trillion dollars and half a million lives? Is it so much better the rise and fight against ISIS was worth it? I would like to hear the perspective of someone who lives there. You don't need to be "someone living there" to answer this question. Just imagine half a million people in your state got killed by some foreign invader, and try to answer for yourself would it be wort it.

bombcar 4y ago
> The number of soldiers who died between 1861 and 1865, generally estimated at 620,000, is approximately equal to the total of American fatalities in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, combined. Was the US Civil War "worth it"? I suspect the current answer is yes. Was the Iraq thing as pertinent or powerful as the civil war? I lean toward no, but I don't have detailed information.
causi 4y ago
Just imagine half a million people in your state got killed by some foreign invader Half a million people were not killed by a foreign invader. They were killed as a result of a foreign invader destroying the existing power structure. The number actually killed by coalition troops is a small fraction of the total.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  Ok. Good to know they are not killed by a foreign invader. It’s just that their deaths are caused by a foreign invasion. Good, I guess citizens of the invading countries can now sleep well.

mc32 4y ago

The world is not clear-cut black and white. Few are completely bad or completely good. Maybe no-one is. Sanguinely, the world is realpolitik and the good must do some bad to increase good. Also the bad do some good in order that they may continue to do bad. On balance was it good? It's an open question. Should the world have let Saddam initiate an Iraq-Iran War II? Was he bluffing? We don't know -he's dead. Maybe countries, like siblings, need to duke it out sometimes. Many years ago there were people calling for Bush (and maybe Obama) to be arrested by the ICC. Bush and Obama are rehabilitated and now there is a more immediate foe who is now to be arrested and rendered to the ICC. Still, we could benefit from examining and have a congressional inquiry into the matter with consequences so that future presidents think twice before committing to war so easily. Then again, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility to declare war, and allows presidents lots of latitude to engage the military in "not war near wars" which are wars in all but name. If they really meant it, they would take that responsibility back. It's more about degrees of good vs degrees of bad. There is no clear-cut good guy and we have to live with that. There are people who are bothered by the duality.

pjc50 4y ago
> Bush and Obama are rehabilitated I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him, they've just added more people to the front of the list.
- mc32 4y ago
  Maybe in theory, in practice anything moved down the list basically is not on a list.
- newaccount2023 4y ago
  > I'm fairly sure that most of the leftists who complained about Bush back then have not rehabilitated him they did after he trash talked Trump apparently saying "grab her by the p----y" is worse than starting two wars
  - 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

It's great that they actually found a victim of the war to speak up, but of course he has to be speaking _in favor_ of the war. If he hadn't put that ridiculous "I disagree" after the obviously true explanation of the failure, this article would not have been published.

hotz 4y ago

[dead]

throwway120385 4y ago
It might seem like all Americans are totally fine with invasions, but you have to remember that we form a new government every 2 years and we replace our executive usually every 8 years unless you do something that incenses a lot of Americans. You paint with a pretty broad brush because you're totally ignoring the history of protest for each of these wars. The fact is we're divided as a nation by whether we're comfortable with imperialism. But we're also allowed by law to be divided, which is a big difference.
beebmam 4y ago
When I read comments like this, I have a hard time understanding how people come to such wide conclusions. You do realize there's an enormous percentage of Americans who do have empathy for those that suffer from their country's actions? It's hard to not simply dismiss comments like this as dishonest, given that this analysis decontextualizes these deaths. What would the consequences be if the US did not help the UN in protecting Korea from a war of aggression? What would the consequences be if the US didn't play a major role in ending European empires post WW2? What would be the consequences for Europe if the US didn't wage a cold war against an aggressive Soviet Union? No one can truly know.

cudgy 4y ago

The going criticism of Sadaam was that he had killed 10,000 people during his reign (as a CIA backed dictator I may add). Even the most US fanboy supported reports admit the US committed more deaths in the first week of the war; many times that 10k over the course of the war. Which regime would rather live under if you were a normal Iraqui?