Was Iraq,America and the rest of the world better off now or before America invaded Iraq?

Answer 1

Iraq, maybe 50/50. Tens of thousands of civilian citizens, including women and children, might still be alive. Likely, that's more than even Saddam and his henchmen would have killed. And, you know what, international diplomacy might have worked. As President Bush said just recently about North Korea, diplomacy does take time. After all, as we now know, weapons inspectors had been successful in eliminating weapons of mass destruction there. More than has been accomplished in Iran or North Korea, or among our allies, India and Pakistan.

The rest of the world? Hard to know. The Middle East would probably have been safer. Certainly, we could have done a better job in Afghanistan by concentrating there. And Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaida would not have spread to Iraq so easily and might actually have been rooted out of the Afghanistan and Pakistan region.

Who knows? If we had not been so involved in Iraq, the UN with our support might have been able to intervene in Darfur earlier and more effectively. I don't know. They might have been expecting too much. At least, we could have focused more attention there.

The US? No question about it. We would have been much better off.

(1) More than 2500 troops would still be alive, and thousands more uninjured.

(2) Our prestige and support in the rest of the world, including the Middle East, was at a high after 9/11. Now our government is held in disrespect even in Europe and among our closest allies, not to mention the Middle East. After all, we are guilty of a preemptive, unilateral, imperialistic invasion of another country, and our rationale was based on false "intelligence" and/or deceptive maneuvering of information.

(3) We are now billions of dollars in debt; our financial situation has exactly reversed itself. Even worse. Granted there may be more reasons for that than Iraq, but that's at the top of the list.

(4) Our military has been stretched thin, and we now appear weaker and more susceptible to defeat, say, in North Korea and Iran--and who knows where else. Rumsfeld's incompetence and short-sightedness have left a negative impression of our power and authority.

(5) If some of the resources (personnel, financing, public attention) used up in Iraq had been devoted to homeland security, such as our ports, our public transportation, our coastal and border patrols, our police and fire departments, we would probably be much, much safer than we are now.

(6) We would have had more resources (again personnel, financing, public attention) to devote to such important needs and issues as health care, poverty, social security reform, and education (esp. of poor and minority youngsters, esp. in inner cities). We might have even done a better job facing Katrina (except that no amount of resources can overbalance that kind of ineptitude).

(6) Our country might not be so viciously divided. President Bush in his first campaign promised unity and "compassionate conservatism." He had very nearly universal support immediately after 9/11. All that went down the tubes with his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

(7) There would have been less acceptance of the administration's justification for such alarming practices as cruel and inhumane prison camps, detention of US citizens and other civilians without trial or communication, surveillance of our private communication, the outing of CIA agents, and the like. Perhaps there would have been less suspicion of the administration's secrecy and dishonesty. Bipartisanship might have survived and been directed toward critical domestic problems like health care, hunger and homelessness, Social Security, illegal employment of immigrants, and election reform.

Are we better off now than before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Decidedly not. Could we have been better off? We'll never know the answer to that, will we? But all many pointers suggest that we could have been.

Our Congressional Representatives and US Senators--both Republican and Democrat--should have their feet held to the fire in this next election. At least, we should require them to admit the problems that exist, explain their positions, and provide a concrete plan for the future. Otherwise, incumbents should be replaced. It's time to start again.

Answer 2

There is no doubt in my mind that the world is better off if we didn't invade Iraq, but I believe that the Iraqis would think otherwise. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was horrible. People who opposed the dictatorship of Hussein would be exected, kidnapped, tortured, and suffer from mass murders. I can't imagine living under those circumstances. Anyways, I'm just going to say that I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but now that we're there, we might as well finish what we started.
Sure, without invading Iraq, the United States wouldn't have this huge deficit, wouldn't be looked at negatively in this world, and would not be losing any troops. However, that wouldn't stop North Korea and its nuclear missiles, Iran and its enrichment program, and any other problem this world faces. P.S. Did you know that more Iraqi's died under Saddam's rule than during the invasion of Iraq?

Answer 3

Yes. Seems there are no reasonable arguments about that.
Let us also remember that making a 'better Iraq' (by killing some 50,000 or 100,000 Iraqis?) was not the first wording. Let’s remember the whole sequence: 1) Iraq is connected with terrorists that made 9-11. When this one did not work, there went next one: 2) Iraq has mastered weapons of mass destruction. When this ‘weapon of mass deception’ went down, then, only then, we defined that purpose of all that was 3) to urgently remove (our former ally in old times) Saddam. There are so many other countries with not so legitimate regimes… Of course it is ‘better’ to have weak dictator out there, dependent, needing weapons in exchange of natural recourses. But even this purpose seems not achievable in Iraq now. Miscalculation… Seems like instead of secular dictator there may eventually come religious fundamentalists to power.

Answer 4

How could the world be less then better off with one less dictator. I think the U.S. is better off fighting the terrorist in Iraq then in this country. I think the people of Iraq are better off without a repressive government in power.

Answer 5

yes they were better off....specially the iraqis...and the rest of the world...who sufferred after nine elevn..sun think it made a world of difference 2 US...except that rest of thee world now beleives more stronlgly than ever before tha US is ther eal terrorist...no doubts over this that they r the biggest terrorist nation 2day or ever in the history i guess

Answer 6

No,simple enough for you.