Is spending $2.5 TRILLION dollars in Iraq really the best way to make America safe?

Question

Don't any of the Republican candidates have a better plan than continuing Bush's losing strategy in Iraq? Surely there's a better way to protect ourselves than flushing money down the toilet in Iraq!

Answer 1

The real question is this: Is spending three times that amount on social services that only perpetuate poverty in America the best way to make America safe? I don't think so. I think spending money on the military is much better.

Answer 2

The fact is, ending the threat of jihadist terrorist attacks
against the US and its allies would be easy enough. You
just need to do what Ron Paul has done, and pay attention
to the actual motivations of the jihadist terrorists. Every
serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US
is motivated by actions that the US government has
undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions
against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli
attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian
infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators
in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

In order to eventually halt the jihadist terrorists from
making these attacks, the US should stop committing these
harmful interventions and thus remove the motivation for
the jihadist terrorists (whose attacks on civilians they by
no means justify) in the first place. Ending these harmful
interventions would in any case be the right thing to do
from a moral standpoint.

This should of course be combined with a strong law-
enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who
undertake such attacks.

Instead, though, the Bush administration has chosen to
deny reality, misrepresent the terrorists' motivations, and
to engage in even more of these harmful interventions
(the invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ethiopia's proxy
invasion/occupation of Somalia, etc.). This simply
exacerbates the problem, driving more and more
Muslims to join the jihadists, and landing the US in the
Iraqi quagmire -- much to the delight of al-Qaida, as
they state in their internal documents.

A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take
some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists --
that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.

Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good
groups in the region, such as:

http://www.rawa.org/
http://www.ifcongress.com/english/index.htm
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
http://www.awalls.org/

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 3

Quit falling into the trap that the left wing media wants you to believe! Recent reports have shown that the plan is helping in Iraq. Don't be such an impressionable child as to believe that everything Bush has done is bad. Grow up. Do you really think that socialist Hilary Clinton is going to swoop in and save the country? I'm not sure if I support the reasons for going into Iraq, but ****! We are there! If we pull out, we are basically putting up a white flag to the insurgents. Dumb.

Answer 4

Nope. Not even close.

In fact, the war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with actually "making us safe". Iraq, before the war, was not a threat to us, or anyone other than perhaps any Iraqi other than the Baathists.

All this nonsense in Iraq has served to make us less safe, in the world. Point of fact, though, this has never been a serious threat to American safety on any large scale. While, sure, 9/11 (conducted by Afghanis and Saudis, by the way, not a single bit of Iraqi involvement) was on the scale of a serious natural disaster. But it was hardly on the scale of a real military threat, such as the Nazi/Axis in WWII. And it's not remotely on the scale of a potential threat such as the Soviet Union was.

Consider the actual fact of things... at their peak, back when they were actually a cohesive organization, Al Queda had a few thousand members. That's it. Most of them poorly educated, living in what we'd think of as stone age conditions. These are not people even capable of making their own guns, much less strategic weapons. Terrorism is a heinous crime, sure, but not a military tactic... it's the tactic employed by the weak in lieu of a military, because they're weak.

It's absolutely insanity that some of the fringe Far Right in this country are blowing up this as any kind of serious threat to America. It's not, and I consider it in insult to folks like my Father, Uncles, and Stepfather, who fought in WWII against an enemy with the actual potential to do use permanent harm here in the USA.

As for this money, it has accomplished one thing -- it's made the world less safe. The USA looks like an invading and conquering enemy in the eyes of many Arabs, and as a result, people are joining terorrist groups who wouldn't have otherwise. This war has been the best recruiting tool bin Laden could have hoped for, for his ends... which also, have nothing to do with Iraq.

As for Republican candidates, well, there's Ron Paul, the only one of the lot who seems to have a whole brain to himself...but he's not considered a frontunner. At least at this point, most Republicans are afraid to go up against the Neocons. This could well change after they lose the 2008 election in both Congress and the Presidency. Possibly even before then, if Bush does any more incredibly stupid things. Time will tell.

Answer 5

Terrorism will be more of a problem if the US will intervene in other countries just like spending trillions of dollars in Iraq to strengthen anti-Islamic campaigns.

Answer 6

We waste that kind of money every year fighting drugs and keeping the poor in the welfare loop, so what are you complaining about?

Also you're behind the times and not keeping up with the news. Haven't you heard? We're winning. Violence is down, the Sunnis and Kurds are turning against Al Qaeda. Try to keep up with the news, so you don't sound so uninformed.

Answer 7

I wonder how much of that money goes to the corporate interests that are rebuilding Iraq. Corporate subsidies to the ones who support your campaign aren't exactly in line with free markets.
I think Republicans, who SAY they are for limited government and free markets, should seriously reconsider the whole Iraq rebuilding fiasco. The oil will dry up in another 20 or 30 years, so then will we want to do anythng there?
Ron Paul is the only REALLY honest candidate, and look how he gets treated by liberals and conservatives. They call him a kook because he doesn't worship at the altar of Almighty Government.

Answer 8

You need to rephrase that as follows: Is spending $2.5 TRILLION dollars in Iraq really the best way to make the oil safe? The war has nothing to do with making us safe, it has to do with protecting the American interest in oil.

Answer 9

Check out Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Search for him on YouTube. He's all over the internet. He is the only candidate period who has a correct foreign policy. He has a bunch of other issues correct as well.

Answer 10

It's but a part of a strong, long-term strategy to combat Islamic jihadists. It would be nice if more people benefitting from our expenditures would join the party.

Some of us were woken up 6 years ago to the fact that there's a war on, but only some of us realize that.