Thread: Benefits of war in Iraq

Hey guys,

I have been reading a lot that the war in Iraq is a mistake, that it is comparable to Vietnam war, that the US troops need to withdraw as soon as possible. I simply do not agree. I think that the media reports, especially those from CNN and other democratic channels are simply exaggerated. I agree with the author of this article http://www.europeancourier.org/19.htm who points out many genuine benefits of the war in Iraq. His analysis is academic and scientific so he can not be accused of supporting any particular party’s agenda. I think it is a good thing that US troops stay in Iraq and continue to fight. I hope they will not be withdrawn and that Baker’s group will suggest something really worth considering. In my opinion we need to continue this war to secure our freedom and national security in the future.

Originally Posted by European

Hey guys,
freedom and national security in the future.

Our freedom and security at the cost of 1740 innocent cilivan lives last month???

The text also says that more people died on average in a year of saddams rule than under the US consitution but this reference disagrees

Iraq Deaths: Saddam vs. U.S.

This article puts the death toll at 100,000 as of Novemeber 2004.
The death toll is suggested to be as high as 600,000 although it is much more likely to be around the 300,000-400,000 mark.

in addition deaths are on the rise not decreasing. The war is on the brink of civil war.

I would also wonder whether your article quoted includes death caused from the 1st gulf war of 1990?? It states that 28,600 died a year. The authur states that this rate of deaths has not been as high since the start of the Iraq war but this is simply untrue because even if we take the death toll to be as low as 150,000 over 3 years we still get a rate of 50,000 a year dying in Iraq.


"Let us next consider the areas in which Islamic terrorist activity occurs. If you ask a well educated European politician how many names of cities and towns in Iraq he knows, most probably he will not be able to name more than 8 or 10. They would be the cities in which terrorist attacks have occurred which were later publicized by the media. Besides ethnically diverse Baghdad, with its population of 4.5 million people, the rest are mostly cities in the so-called Sunni Triangle. The rest of the territory of this extensive country (435, 000 square kilometers) is calm, and its people are safe. It does not mean that terrorist attacks in these 8-10 cities do not destabilize Iraq, or that people living in these cities are safe. But the exaggerated media reports coming out of Iraq lead to the spread of untruths. "

I had a friend at school who visited Iraq not this latest summer but the summer before as she is of Iraqi origin. She didn't visit any of these "terror cities" but even while she was there there was a heavy Military presence and there was panic in a museum she was visiting as the doors were locked shut on reports of a bomb exploding outside... hmm sound calm and peaceful to you???

I support his claims that the middle east will become democratised slowly and that this is a good thing but i disagree that Military action was needed to allow this to happen or even that it required an outside influence at all. I also disagree that the casualties in Iraq are worth Democracy being brought to the Middle east.

I believe Democracy was going to come to the Middle east, I think with so many external countries in Democracy it would be impossible for the middle eastern leaders to prevent its rise (if slowly) eventually and an internal struggle would be much more acceptable than what is currently taking place in Iraq.