Is the U.S. safer because of the war in Iraq?

No. This war was not about terrorism. This war was based on lies told to us, the American people. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is dead and yet the war goes on, five years after Bush said that we had "won". We are now in an occupation of Iraq in what is a civil war. And if McCain is elected we will occupy the country for 100 more years and your sons, daughters, and grandchildren will be there.

Strangely yes

Let me add, in the midst of something it is hard to have clarity, so it is true that history will be the biggest judge. Look at the Vietnam war, when those men came back, they were treated like dirt, but time has given a different perspective. Kinda hard to see the whole when all you have is pieces.

OK, this has just become a ridiculous question that serves to only watch Patraeus squirm and come up with another lie.

We are not safer. This was about oil. 911 was an inside job used to get the Patriot act through and get us into Iraq. We are not prepared for an emergency on US soil or anywhere else. We are spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military so that fascists like Cheney and Wolfowitz and pearl... et al can use it for their own personal, political and comporate interests. The fact that they are even asking the questions anymore is ridiculous.

Our soldiers are doing a wonderful job, and should be honored for their service, but that is not the point. They are fighting the wrong war!


Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld and the Republicans sold us a bill of goods when they convinced us we needed to invade Iraq (Hillary too, but she probably didn't really know what she was voting for).


Why have the Republican leadership not been brought up on charges for lying to us?


We have lost 4,000 American soldiers, we will have spent $3 TRILLION ($7,000 PER PERSON) for NOTHING because of what they got us into! There is no benefit to the US for fighting this war. Resources are being taken away from Afghanistan, US education, US roads, US poverty, etc., etc., etc... World opinion of the US has plummeted as a result. We don't have Bin Laden and are no closer to him.

I would urge you to also blog your comments on Iraq Insider to this post, that way non-Gatherers can hear the good points that you are all brining up.

http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/04/have-us-efforts-in-iraq-made-our.html

Hmmmmm, the Iraq Insider, huh?

(Iraq Insider is a project of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

I wonder if they lean Conservative or Liberal......lol

Is all this sacrifice that the U.S. has made bringing about a more secure America?

If there were any attacks on America, 9/11-style, then you might have a good argument. But since we haven't, then a solid argument for a more secure America can easily be made.

Nope.

Hi Brett,

Thanks for joining the conversation.

The Center is non-partisan. Nuclear arms control (the type of arms we work on) has always been a non-partisan issue. Some of the biggest arms control advocates have been staunch political conservatives: Reagen (who advocated with Gorbachev for a complete elimination of all nuclear weapons, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Former Secretary of State George Shultz (who recently published thier second op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for a world free of nuclear weapons -- you can read it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036422673589947.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries).

Our issues (halting the spread of WMD's, optimizing national security spending, and increasing non-proliferation) have taken, and take, salience with Presidents and members of Congress (and members of the general public) on both sides of the aisle.

And yet The Surge continues to be funded.

Oh, and both Iraqi deaths and American soldier deaths are WAY down from just a year ago at this time (check the link for exact figures). Sounds like success to anyone with a brain.........

http://www.icasualties.org

Bret, you are absolutely ridiculous!

"If there were any attacks on America, 9/11-style, then you might have a good argument. But since we haven't, then a solid argument for a more secure America can easily be made. "
...Brilliant reasoning Bret . . . You feel safe from the illegal immigrants streaming from Canada across the border? Are we secure when 3,000 illegal aliens (per day) continue to stream unchecked across the Southern border, even years after the so called 'War on Terrorism' began? How are the ports and rails secured now? What's the rate of inspection on Ocean Containers?

We're a safe as we always were . . . even if I don't have hand lotion on my flight.

"And yet The Surge continues to be funded. "
Which means . . . what . . . exactly?

"Oh, and both Iraqi deaths and American soldier deaths are WAY down from just a year ago at this time ..."
They count Iraqi deaths now? Cool. Remind me again . . . which ones do and which ones don't count . . . head shots from the back don't count but they do from the front . . . right? You know what? If you put a cop in the intersection nearest my office . . . nobody runs the red light. Or speeds. We could end traffic violations by putting one in EVERY intersection . . . although we'd go broke paying for them. Guess what happens when they leave?

It's not rocket science . . . hell, it's not even GE science . . .

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

And I thought the dim one quit Gather as teresa h did.

The surge is "working" (temporarily) because we are currently PAYING tribal leaders to "cooperate" (look it up if you don't believe).

There haven't been any attacks since 9/11 because we have stepped up security. If you don't think Al-Qaida isn't plotting, you have your head in the sand; nothing is safer.

"....nothing is safer. "

If anything we have increased the number of people that are pissed off at us.

Doyle -

Even Gen. Petraeus said that America is safer because of what we're doing in Iraq. He should know better than any of us - he's actually there.

You caught his testimony, right?

WM H. -

They were pissed before and they'll be pissed in the future. But now they've seen what happens to folks like the Taliban when we get pissed. They're probably likely to see the futility of coming all the way to America to vent their rage. So of course we're safer now. Especially after we retaliated after 9/11.

How can you Lefties not see this?

"You caught his testimony......."

Seems to me that every general that has said anything else has been fired. So what I think is that he wants to keep his job.

Like a time machine , same bs as last year , good old general betraus.

General Petraeus: "We still need to keep soldiers in Iraq, no telling when they can leave."

Democrats: "It seems like we should think about leaving sometime?"

Republicans: "Withdrawal is surrender!"

Yeah, Bret . . . I think I got the gist of it. And? It seemed to me he failed to answer that and had to be pressed . . . and remained unconvincing. If he's in Iraq how in the Hell can he speak to our safety here . . . shouldn't he be worried more about our troops safety there? Use that bubble wrapped head Bert . . . He's creating more and more people that hate this country and knows ZERO about security at the LA Ports or what's in the head of illegal immigrant Number 2,287 that crossed the border today . . . and if HE thinks that makes us safer . . . well . . . I'd say he sounds like a Booshie Appointee! Incidentally, I missed the part where he explains how anything he's doing in Iraq makes US safer . . .

"If anything we have increased the number of people that are pissed off at us. "
Well . . . that's true. But to do that we borrow MASSIVE money from China and give it to the War Profiteers . . . knowing children and grandchildren will have to pay the bill or learn Chinese.

"Seems to me that every general that has said anything else has been fired."
Except the few with ethics and foresight who retired. Exactly. How many stars do you need on your shoulder to figure THAT BS out?? I was a big fan of General Patreus before this fricken War and I can't stand the way the man has let me down.

"There haven't been any attacks since 9/11 because we have stepped up security."
That's a complete crock of BS. Not permitting breast, milk on an air flight isn't security. Same goes for hand lotions, anti-perspirant, lip gloss and tooth paste . . . and the wonderful and super safe policy of having shoes removed before boarding in SOME airports.

It's not better security and it's not because they're mired in Iraq. It's because these last few "Dead-Enders" McCain thinks we can beat in a hundred years live in shacks or caves and couldn't get here if they wanted too . . . and frankly . . . if they could . . . all they'd have to do is walk across our Southern Border.

Better Security? Pfft.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

My bad. So?

No we are not safer. The once secular Iraq is now going to be a pawn of Iran and they will in turn destabilize the region as a 'persian' threat to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. Not to mention that Cheney's bid to control the OIL field will surely backfire and wreak havoc on our economy.....but then again these are OIL men in charge right now and it shouldn't be a surprise that prices are rising.

They have also undertaken a huge shift in National Defense by privatizing the army and allowing the hiring mercenaries [ contractors ] thus plundering the treasury....all of which I would say has not made us stronger or safer. Indeed we are more more vulnerable than ever from internal threats to our freedoms thatn from without. Like Rome, which fell from within.

First and foremost, any rational person, who knows history, who wants to break apart and show the lies between those comments is at feast ends with those foolish comments. First, on '' we captured Saddam, Iraq is safer" is garbage. We funded Saddam during Iran in the 80's, we faught him in Kuwait, we sanctioned and bombed his country. We had time to get rid of him at earlier times that at least, were legal and legit.

I know he was a terrible person and tormented a country and that's why I say he should of been delt with then, not used as a pawn and then destroyed finally when needed. Iraq was left to loot after the overthrow, which the U.S. should of regulated. Another fact is the commission reports said that Saddam and Al Queida have no link. We also funded his ruthless war against Iran, the murder of Iranians Shi'ite and Kurds.

As far as spreading democracy that's crap, because Mossadeq was elected in a democratic manner, and we over- threw him in 1953. That is why we funded Iraq because the Shah was booted in 79' causing the Iranian revolution. If that's the case look at Gaza and Hamas, they were elected in a democratic manner, and we consider them terrorist. We want democracy but in our own "ideal" leader, one who is the most beneficial to us.

As far as being safer, nope. We risk more enemies through out the Middle East, and with troops spread out you leave holes. The amount spent on defense is outstanding. We could pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan and use that to actually boost our safety. I warn this must be done without emposing on the rights of the american people though. The Patriot Act is more on foreign war, and emposing on rights, than boosting security. We don't talk about securness and massive changes since 9/11. If 9/11 happened the way they say,( and I doubt it!) there were huge mistakes on that day. We need Acts to make a safer America, not to implimint a war, that by U.N. charter was 'ILLEGAL". I do not think America is safer, are we more alert? I would say yes, but not safer. We risk to much blowback and issues with other countries, part of the reason, along with others, why we are there in the first place.