Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
When I look at a policy decision the way I judge it is are we better off than we were before. In this case I would say yes.
1) The Iraqis are definitely better off than they were before. As explained above
|
If you think the Iraqis would be better off in a civil war, you're fucking nuts.
Quote:
|
2) With minmum casualties (for the families involved in the deaths are tragic but 2,000 dead is almost nothing. We lost 2,000 men in the first ten seconds of Iwo Jima or D-Day. In Korea we would lose 2,000 men just to take a hill) we got rid of a major enemy of the United States.
|
To be replaced by?
Quote:
|
3) Our prestige increased significantly. As a wise man said - it is better to feared than loved. Whether someone loves you is beyond your control but whether or not they fear you is within your control. Love is a fickle emotion that is unstable fear sticks like glue. Taking out Iraq in three weeks with so little casualites made the whole world realize they really don't want to get into an armed conflict with us. We had lost a lot of crediblity when we didn't enforce the Gulf War peace treaty. Now all the credibility is back.
|
To the contrary, our prestige has taken a huge beating. If Iraq succombs to civil war, our prestige will sink immeasurably. We will have failed in all of our strategic goals.
