The US military role in Iraq has officially ended

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Military
In summary: I was very happy when Saddam was overthrown. It was a good thing. We Iraqis had suffered for too long."Link? I heard estimates a year ago saying such claims were wildly exaggerated and the WHO puts the estimate near 25k. I need to look for that study.
  • #36
russ_watters said:
I think you missed the point, since your post has nothing whatsoever to do with what you quoted. The point was that after the war in Iraq started, foreign terrorists streamed into Iraq to fight against Americans. I actually consider that a positive thing.

Where did they come from?

Foreign terrorists streaming into Iraq most likely was a positive thing for Russia, as Russian casualties in Chechnya dropped about the same time that terrorist activity in Iraq started rising.

I admit that is far from convincing. Russian casualties in Chechnya were about 200 per month in 2000, and a little less than 500 per year in 2001 and 2002, so the tide was already turning in Chechnya. Then casualties dropped to under 300 for 2003, to under 200 for 2004 & 2005, to under 100 in 2006. Towards the end of 2004 was the Beslan schoolhouse massacre and was a turning point, in a way. After that, rebel leaders started dieing rather regularly.

But the increase in Iraq was pretty large if all of Iraq's terrorists were freshly trained. I think a significant portion of those folks had to come already trained from somewhere else. It might be a stretch to say terrorism in Iraq turned the tide in Chechnya. It's more likely that once the tide started turning in Chechnya, Iraq seemed like a more promising operating region.

In other words, terrorists flocking to Iraq didn't turn the tide in Chechnya, but it did make for a more rapid turn of events in Chechnya.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it mattered where terrorists fought. All that happened was the battle shifted from one country to another.

On a smaller scale, all that happened was that the US got the opportunity to fight them instead of the Russians fighting against them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Invading Iraq after 9/11 would have been like invading Mexico after Peal Harbor.
Sure it was a good thing to remove Saddam based on humanitarian reasons.
But the United Nations and International Court should have been tried first.
If those options failed then removing him in another way would have been in order.
That would not involve a wholesale war.
So in the end , a secular government was removed and replaced by a religious
government that is aligned with Iran
 
  • #38
USA is currently having problems within it soils but it keeps on "taking care" of the concerns outside it. Although most countries it has helped are eternally grateful to America, Americans should and foremost prioritize its own above others. Too much being the Uncle Sam. Many are already hurt from its continual sacrifices.
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
I think you missed the point, since your post has nothing whatsoever to do with what you quoted. The point was that after the war in Iraq started, foreign terrorists streamed into Iraq to fight against Americans. I actually consider that a positive thing.

BobG said:
Where did they come from?

A more interesting question would be where they went afte they wore out their welcome in Iraq?

And what impact did having them divert to Iraq for a few years have?

The benefits of having foreign terrorists stream into Iraq really haven't been spelled out.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
94
Views
10K
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Back
Top