Was Iraq Worth It?

I think not
#1
An award-winning Iraqi journalist wonders about the cost of the U.S. invasion.

May 12, 2006 - On Wednesday I sat in a darkened room at the Kennedy Library in Boston watching photos from Iraq projected on a wall screen as an Associated Press photographer talked about covering the anguish of war. She has produced Pulitzer Prize-winning work, her camera capturing images of bodies piled in a heap, anguished mothers and terrified children, victims of the U.S.-led invasion. But inside, she always wondered if she was in the wrong profession. "Is it more important to take pictures," she would ask herself, "or to give medical help?"

That question still haunts German-born Anje Niedringhaus, winner of a 2005 Courage in Journalism award from the International Women's Media Organization (full disclosure: I am a co-chair of the IWMF). Niedringhaus was among the speakers at a panel about humanitarian intervention, a subject on a lot of people's minds right now given the worsening situation in Iraq. President Bush's job-approval rating had sunk to a perilous 31 percent, with dissatisfaction over the Iraq war one of the main reasons why.

Bush insists progress is being made in Iraq, but at what pace and at what cost? It's difficult to verify the administration's claims. Since Iraq has become a supremely dangerous country, most foreign journalists remain in the American-protected Green Zone in Baghdad, venturing out only with military escort. "It's not that I'm afraid," Niedringhaus says, but as a Western woman carrying camera gear, she won't be returning to Iraq. The risk of kidnapping is too great. "I would go back to sit in the Palestine Hotel guarded by American soldiers to edit the work of our Iraqi colleagues. They are our only eye. I am very sorry, but I can't show you anymore what I showed you before, and I think it is a terrible situation."

Two thirds of Americans think going into Iraq was a mistake, and they don't believe Bush can successfully extricate this country from the deepening disaster. A story in USA Today on Thursday about a secret government program to collect the phone records of tens of millions of Americans is another reminder of the broad powers this administration has assumed while ignoring existing law and constitutional protections in the name of fighting terrorism.

But it's important to remember that it didn't have to turn out this way. At the Kennedy Library on Wednesday Anne Barnard, The Boston Globe's Middle East bureau chief, recalled those heady days right after Saddam Hussein was toppled. "It was as if a Band-Aid had been ripped off—it hurt, but it was something new and exciting and people wanted a better life, and they wanted justice." Barnard filed stories that chronicled what she called these "raw desires." She saw people digging up recently discovered graves and watched one man "pulling up fistfuls of his brother's bones out of the ground." She expected to see a flood of agencies and aid workers come in to help the Iraqi people and stabilize the country after decades in which 100,000 people died at the hands of Saddam's regime, and others suffered from sanctions and neglect. The deliverance never happened. Instead, in the summer of 2003 the United Nations headquarters was bombed, and everything began to unravel. "That's when we understood journalists and aid workers would not be granted safe haven," says Barnard, who lived in Iraq for almost two years.

The panel marked the second Elizabeth Neuffer Forum on Human Rights and Journalism. The winner of an IWMF Courage in Journalism Award in 1998, Neuffer was killed in an auto accident in Iraq in 2003 while on assignment for The Boston Globe. To continue her legacy, the IWMF sponsors a woman journalist for a nine-month research fellowship in human-rights journalism and social justice issues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies. The awardee this year is a young Iraqi journalist, Huda Ahmed, whose essay touches on many of the sentiments expressed by her American counterparts. Ahmed wrote that in April 2003 there were thousands of foreign journalists in Baghdad. "Today, I can just about name every foreign writer left in my country." With fewer outsiders reporting, she wants to prepare for the day when only Iraqi journalists will tell the story of their country, and she wants to better understand the U.S. policies and politics that made Iraq "the Bush administration's experiment in exporting its own democratic ideals to the Middle East." She notes that Americans debate over how much freedom they would give up to protect themselves from terrorists. "Here in Baghdad, where we plan trips to buy groceries like military operations—precise, swift and with hopes of avoiding casualties ... I hear people ask, 'What is the use of freedom if it means nothing but death?'" Like so many people, Ahmed asks, "Is it worth it?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762202/site/newsweek/
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#2
There were warnings early on

about the political vacuum that would result from the overthrow of Saddam's regime. We were told that the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shias, would kill each other by the hundreds in a massive civil war. These warnings were ignored. In hindsight, it now appears that those warnings should have been heeded. The violence is increasing by the week. Would it be a lot worse if the Americans pulled out? I don't know what is hoped to be achieved in Iraq Iraq will never be again what it once was. The rebuilding is impossible in the festering violence that pervades the whole country. The argument that the invasion should not have happened, is very strong.
 
missile
Conservative
#3
The invasion, and the reasons for it, are not worth even one of the dead American soldiers.
 
aeon
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

There were warnings early on

about the political vacuum that would result from the overthrow of Saddam's regime. We were told that the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shias, would kill each other by the hundreds in a massive civil war. These warnings were ignored. In hindsight, it now appears that those warnings should have been heeded.


The warnings were there, the bush administration knew it, and was well aware of this, but they just didnt care , the most important thing is to get foot in iraq.

white house memo

Quote:

Also present at the meeting were President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the Presidents Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.

Those present, as documented in Mr Sands' book, also discussed what might happen in Iraq after liberation.

President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."


http://www.channel4.com/news/special...ge.jsp?id=1661
 
JonB2004
#5
Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?
 
Finder
#6
Bush was wrong and actted like an international criminal, ignoring international law. He believes other nations should follow the rule of international law, but leads by ignoring it. Not only did the Iraq war hurt the reputation of the USA but ended up increasing terrorism in the middle east and anger towards the USA.

The Lies the Bush admin told were seen threw by any academic proff at the time as being next to a joke, linking 9/11, Osama and Saddam together as Saddam and Osama are bitter foes. Also it was widely known that Iraq after the gulf war (1) had not even recovered to a fraction of it's post war str and how could Iraq even be seen as a threat. When you take into account many of the things the admin said such as the war not costing more then 80billion, the war would pay for itself, the war would only last a few months and they would be seen as liberators by the iraqis. Then, that the insurgency would not last long, then telling us almost two years ago that the insurgency was in it's death throws.

Nothing about the war was right. However the only way to keep things from getting worse is to have a military stabalizing force, which I'd rather be the UN but the USA can not leave until something else is in place.
 
Kreskin
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?

If you believe Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq then I have some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan for sale.
 
JonB2004
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?

If you believe Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq then I have some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan for sale.

Well Kreskin, why do you think Bush invaded Iraq?
 
Kreskin
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?

If you believe Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq then I have some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan for sale.

Well Kreskin, why do you think Bush invaded Iraq?

Because he could (no WMD's) and it transferred wealth from the treasury to his military industrial cronies. Mortgage the rest of the poor sods for payback.

Why do you think he hasn't invaded North Korea?
 
JonB2004
#10
Bush hasn't invaded North Korea yet because I think he's hoping he can start up talks with them again.
 
aeon
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

Saddam was killing innoncent iraqies, so does the coalition, so does the insurgent, many people were living in poverty , because of the UN sanctions imposed on iraq by USA, UK and the whole coalition of the sheep,not saddam, iraq was going to be part of a first world standard in 1990, until the sanctions came.


Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?

Interest, nothing else.
 
SaintLucifer
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush was right to invade Iraq. Regardless of what the UN said, he still believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Saddam, of course, didn't have WMDs, but Iraq needed to be liberated. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis, and many people there were living in poverty.

People don't seem to mind sending people over to Africa to help them get out of the same situation, but why does it seem to be such a big deal with Iraq?

Saddam absolutely had WMDs. He just hid them. Do you understand why they were never found? The Soviets assisted them with hiding them. They have admitted to this. Much of the WMD's were either destroyed or sent to Syria (ever wonder why the Americans were suddenly interested in Syria?). This has been kept quiet because the USA does not wish to upset the greatest supplier of WMDs to Iraq - the former Soviet Union. Former Soviet Generals have admitted Iraq most definitely had WMDs. A former scientist from Iraq's nuclear program as assisted by the French admitted Saddam was very close to having nukes (why do you think he had the French build his nuke plants?). All of the evidence regarding Iraq's possession of WMDs was destroyed.

People mention the American 'conquest' of Iraq was much too quick for Saddam to have ever had time to destroy his WMDs. Christ on a stick but he had months of warning. The Russians had watched the American buildup in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as if they were actually there through the eyes of their military satellites. It was the Russians who told Saddam his forces did not stand a chance against the coalition forces. Every moment before Iraq was invaded Saddam knew exactly the disposition of every single US soldier, tank, fighter etc. thanks to Russian satellite imagery. Why do you think there was never a full-scale battle? Why did the Iraqis so quickly ring their best forces around Baghdad? The Americans advanced all the way to Baghdad without much resistance. Why? Simple. The Iraqis knew they would be wasting their time taking on such powerful forces so thanks to Russian prodding they decided to make taking Baghdad an effort in itself meanwhile Russian advisors were still busy removing WMDs from Iraq. Have you never wondered why the American forces found so many MiG-29s buried underground? These are very advanced fighters capable of taking on any fighter in the USAF's arsenal. The Americans were stunned to discover this MiG-29 Fulcrum was completely rusted out and had never seen any work in ages. Why? Simple. The Iraqis were unable to get replacement parts thanks to the embargo against them. How does one keep up a fighter as advanced as the MiG-29 Fulcrum when there is nothing to keep them up with?? The only reason the Americans owned the skies over Baghdad would be thanks to a non-existent Iraqi Air Force. What remained of its air force was held together by duct tape thanks to the embargo. America's 'conquest' of Iraq is not the big deal everyone makes it out to be. Iraq was a weakened nobody that even Canada could have kicked ass.
 
SaintLucifer
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Bush hasn't invaded North Korea yet because I think he's hoping he can start up talks with them again.

The US Forces would suffer huge casualties were they to invade North Korea. Theirs is a far more powerful force, one not weakened by almost a decade of forced embargo. The only thing which would keep North Korea at bay would be a stronger embargo yet the USA keeps feeding their people. Why? Blackmail. The North Koreans have the USA so badly shitting its collective pants because they have nukes that they quietly give them aid. What stupid country aids its enemy? This reminds of the story I read about Jimmy Carter presenting the Soviet Union with a brand-new tractor plant to assist the Soviets thanks to another year of failed crops. What do the Soviets do? They convert the factory into the most-efficient tank manufacturer it has ever had. This puts truth into Kruschev's words 'the West will hang themselves, we need only provide them with the rope'. If not for leaders like Reagan and Thatcher you may all rest assured the world would be living under the hammer & sickle today.
 
aeon
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SaintLucifer


Saddam absolutely had WMDs. He just hid them. Do you understand why they were never found? The Soviets assisted them with hiding them. They have admitted to this. Much of the WMD's were either destroyed or sent to Syria (ever wonder why the Americans were suddenly interested in Syria?). This has been kept quiet because the USA does not wish to upset the greatest supplier of WMDs to Iraq - the former Soviet Union. Former Soviet Generals have admitted Iraq most definitely had WMDs. A former scientist from Iraq's nuclear program as assisted by the French admitted Saddam was very close to having nukes (why do you think he had the French build his nuke plants?). All of the evidence regarding Iraq's possession of WMDs was destroyed.

And you support that claim, with what exactly??

Saddam prefered to hide his nuke, get easily invaded by foreign nation, get his sons killed , being a war prisonner by americans, than using them??

like i said, support what you say, with something like an article , i am curious.
 
I think not
#15
SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.
 
Finder
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.


Thats why you keep coming back... for the entertainment.
 
GhostHacked
#17
Saddam did not have any WMDs after the first Gulf War. They got as far as getting the right technology and then enough material to produce one test bomb. The methods Iraq used at the start to enrich uranium was not efficient enough. Imad Khadduri's book "Iraq's Nuclear Mirage" explains this. He was one of the main scientists involved in the nuclear programme. After the gulf war, they had no chance of getting the programme back up and running to what it had before. Basicly making Iraq unable to produce nukes. Power stations were hit. Isreal helped with taking out one nuclear reactor.

It's just plain silly after one major war, then 10 years of tight UN sanctions (Oil for Food? we buy your oil on the cheap cheap and you may get food). No fly zones, tight control and surveilance on Iraq. I doubt they had the slightest chance to get nuked out the door.

Chem and Bio weapons I really don't know about so I cannot say. But nukes for Iraq were a no go after 1991.
 
annabattler
#18
Unless democracy comes as the result of a grass roots movement, it will not take hold, no matter where it is imposed.
The WMD argument was a smokescreen,an excuse for Bush. If you follow the money,(weapons,army procurements,private contracts) you'll see some major American conglomerates are making huge bucks from Iraq.
And what is more astonishing,the "citadel" that is to be the new American embassy in Baghdad continues to be built,electricity to the site is never interrupted,nor are water supplies.
Certainly,regular Iraqi residents can only hope for the restoration of their previously solid infrastructure.
Regular Iraqis are afraid to shop, afraid to send their children to school....this "attack" on Iraqis has been going on since 1990,in one form or another.A child born in 1990,in Iraq,has only known bombings(nightly,courtesy of Britain and the U.S.),insurgency attacks,lack of basic supplies,fear,mourning slain family members....it's this generation who will soon come to the fore.
Iraq is a lost cause,though a number of us believe it was never a legitimate cause.
 
aeon
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.


As long he doesnt tell me, bagdad isnt safer than any american city, i won't make fun of him/her.
 
I think not
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.


As long he doesnt tell me, bagdad isnt safer than any american city, i won't make fun of him/her.

I said it was safer than Washington DC in terms of homicides you blow hole.
 
aeon
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.


As long he doesnt tell me, bagdad isnt safer than any american city, i won't make fun of him/her.

I said it was safer than Washington DC in terms of homicides you blow hole.


Whatever it is the same, as long as he/she doesnt mention bagdad as being safer than washington, i won't make fun of her/him.
 
MikeyDB
#22
Of course Iraq had stockpiles of nukes and biological/chemical weapons!

Witness the devastation wrecked upon the “Coalition of the Willing”

Invading Iraq was absolutely necessary. Just ask anyone living in a district where weapons’ manufacturing puts bread on the table!

Imagine for a moment what might have happened to those poor desperate investors in the Carlyle Group if Bush hadn’t created a market for more weaponry?

Why Clinton sent twenty cruise missiles into Baghdad…

June 26, 1993:

“On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton, ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets.

Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraqi’s most gifted artists.”
“The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that they had been "lucky," as one national security aide put it, in that only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course.”

Thus, on a Saturday in June, the President and his advisers could not resist proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly had full confidence in what they were telling the press and the public about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a plot to kill George Bush, they would have almost certainly ordered a far fiercer response than they did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but, in their view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle of a large and populous city.”
Seymour Hersh

“U.S. citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all.”

See even before 2001 and them evil-doer-Eyerackys were spoiling fer a fight!
 
MikeyDB
#23
Don’t imagine for a moment that Clinton sending missiles into Baghdad or the Sudan was an act of war…or addressed with full acceptance of America’s latest excuse for its belligerence, an act of “terrorism”….

America never never never acts as the aggressor and never never never commits “terrorism”.

At best a million dollar missile loaded with high explosives sent into the heart of a city is…..yeah a love-note….

Well OK twenty sent ….but hey only three missed!
 

Similar Threads

7
Is the PS3 really worth all this?
by thomaska | Nov 17th, 2006
18
Why Iraq Is Still Worth the Effort
by I think not | Mar 25th, 2006
8
Was the War in Iraq Worth the Cost?
by Toro | Mar 16th, 2006