Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Debate on NATO and Democratic League Continues ...

Expecting smooth sailing in the trans-Atlantic relationship? Some interesting reactions at the Atlantic Community.

And is the magic of the Atlantic Alliance over? Dan Drezner weighs in at Newsweek.

It would be nice if Americans were told about what they've gotten for this deadly and expensive war.

Namely, the removal of a terrorist dictator who was recruiting, arming and training thousands of Iraqi and non-Iraqi terrorists, including suicide bombers. Removing a terrorist dictator who had state run mass production of IED's, carbombs and suicide vests as well as detailed plans for bombing U.S. embassies and military bases and naval vessels.

We see the death tolls and costs each night on tv but would Saddam be sitting idly by today if he hadn't been removed? I humbly ask all those open minded to really ask themselves.

As the manager of www.regimeofterror.com, covering this topic for years, I'd be honored to be considered for a piece in your highly esteemed magazine.
Mark, there is a big difference between just removing Saddam and what we've gotten in Iraq. If all we wanted to do was decapitate the old regime and put it under careful supervision so that it wouldn't be a threat, it could have been done at far less cost.

No, what we have now is the hubris of a group that thought it was going to transform the middle east into utopia at no cost and opened pandoras' boxes of problems.

And don't you think the tradeoff of Iraq war leaving Iran much stronger was worth it?
All these attacks--IEDs, etc.--started AFTER the U.S. invasion, right? This sounds a lot like saying NATO had to bomb Serbia because of the refugees who only started being expelled after the NATO campaign started.
This comment threat seems unrelated to the topic but I guess it is a debate of sorts.

Mark's points should be so easily dismissed, anonymous 10:02 and serbianna. This guy and his regime was a problem. This wasn't just a nutcase neocon view. I think Dimitri Simes who can't be accused of being some sort of utopian idealist has written a number of times that containment was failing and Saddam was on the move. The lack of a postwar plan and the pie in the sky stuff about democracy, fine, legitimate criticisms--but getting rid of Saddam and then trying to set up a new government that wouldn't be a threat to its neighbors was a good thing.
conservative realist:

It was good for Iran and for Kuwait.
Yes, they are really enjoying the high energy prices the Iraq war brought about.
Anonymous 11:49 AM:

I think the high oil prices have had several causes:

- the elimination of exploration capabilities from US Majors under Wall Street guidence during 1980s

- Sanction on Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya that prevented development of energy resources in those states for 20 years.

- Crash of oil prices in 1990s which destroyed incentives for energy exploration and development

- the rise of China and, to a lesser extent, India as new consumers in 1990s.

I do not think that you can attribute the rise in oil prices to the US-Iraw War of 2003.
True, all these are factors. But taking significant amounts of Iraqi production offline and then the uncertain security situation in the Gulf hasn't helped to bring prices down.
Anonymous 12:10:

To my knowledge, Iraq was producing less than 3 million barrels of oil a day. That was certainly disrupted throughout 2003 and 2004. I think Iraq is producing around 2.7 million barrels a day now. The rise in prices continued even after the oil production in Iraq had reached its pre-war level.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?