Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Dissent. At the very least, in the short term we are killing or occupying a large number of people that would otherwise potentially do us harm.
|
I keep hearing that. But I also keep hearing about how we are thwarting dozens and dozens of attacks, and of course every once in awhile failing to thwart any attacks.
I also keep hearing that Clinton left us utterly defenseless, which means he failed to thwart any attacks whatsoever, which can only lead to the conclusion that a whole lot more people are attacking us now than ever tried to do so under Clinton. I wonder why? But I guess this is neither here nor there.
Anyway -- if we are really thwarting so many attacks, then it seems that, on a net basis, the number of people otherwise being occupied or killed in Iraq is less than the growth in people who became willing to do us harm as a result of the war. Put differently, as I've said before, the war in Iraq was a big boon to the al Qaeda recruiting drive.
I would disagree, also, that they are not harming us just because they are in Iraq. I think 1500 dead American soldiers counts as harming us. Do you agree?
Quote:
|
But I always bought into the long term view (i.e., the only way to ensure long term safety is to bring democracy and capitalism to the ME.
|
I think I agree with that. I don't agree that going to war in Iraq was the way to promote democracy in the region. I'm not sure that I can suggest a better way, but we seem to have drawn closer to the Saudis than ever and they are hardly democratic, and hardly our allies against radical Islam.
I also wonder -- seriously -- whether democracy in the ME is such a good thing. If Iran's voters are a clue, then I really wonder. And worry.
Bluntly, I'm pretty fucking down today.
