"The question isn't whether...we're better off without Saddam Hussein"

[checks-n-balances]

Good point from great letter to the editor, NYT:

October 10, 2004
Deciding to Go to War

To the Editor:

Re "Ignorance Isn't Strength," by Paul Krugman (column, Oct. 8):

Defenders of the decision to go to war tend to fall back on the idea that maybe someday sanctions might have fallen, and then Saddam Hussein might have been really dangerous. Yes, he was a dangerous, awful dictator. Yes, he wrote checks to Palestinian suicide bombers. The question isn't whether, in some ideal universe, we're better off without Saddam Hussein. The question is whether, given the enormous costs of the war, and the many other difficulties we face, this was the most urgent priority facing our nation.

Determined to fight a war in Iraq, the administration refused to make this calculation in the period leading up to the war. As we evaluate the meaning of the latest findings from Iraq, we can't afford to lose sight of it now. We couldn't afford this voluntary war, and didn't really need to fight it, and that is the debacle.

The main threats to the nation remain at large, thousands of men and women are dead, and the Arab-Israeli conflict hasn't been helped one bit by this war. I feel sick to my stomach that soldiers have been sacrificed to such sloppy thinking.

xxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx, Ill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/opinion/l10krugman.html?oref=login

[rpannier]

1. I don't think...

there are many people crying that Hussein is gone. It was how we wrested him from power that bothers me -- the administration lied, challenged the integrity of those who opposed it and created "The Coalition of the Schilling." I guess if you throw enough money at some people they'll do almost anything.
I know people who were (and some still are) if favor of the war. I never questioned their motives or their integrity. They are allowed to hold radically different opinions from me. The majority of the people I know, never questioned my integrity.
In the end, the administrations questioning of my integrity and patriotism (I'm a veterean of the first Gulf War) and the integrity of those opposed to the war angered me the most.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Now that we know he had no WMD, and that he was not involved

with 9/11, I don't see how any one can conclude that Iraq was justified. And I don't see how they can conclude that we're safer. It was a Bush family priority for reasons only Bush Oil Inc. would know for sure.

[demforall]

3. indeed

it's called revenge...geez

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Welcome to DU demforall.

[louis c]

5. Absolutely

We are better of without Saddam.

we would be better off with a regime change in China, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chechnya, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iberia, Haiti and I'm sure you can think of a lot more.

Now, when I say "we", I really mean the current US government. The point is that for "us" to conduct foreign policy in a consistent manner and overthrow all threats to the US by dictatorships, we would have to have a million and half soldiers deployed in combat around the world. Also, about a trillion and half taxpayer's dollars a year would have to be spent.

In a show of hands, how many are willing to make that commitment?