Monday, November 24, 2008


A number cruncher at the University of Chicago Law School suggests that it's very possible that civilian deaths in Iraq may have been greater if we hadn't invaded. (He also points out that they have more commercial TV stations, a greater "freedom index" and other positives.) Which is great. But you still have to wonder - we committed our troops and a large portion of our GDP for what, to make life better in Iraq? What have they done for US lately? (h/t Andrew Sullivan)


Publius said...

I was wondering if we could talk to the millions of Jews that Hitler killed if they would have preferred it if we had "invaded" a tad earlier?

Then I remembered. I CAN'T ask them because they are dead.

Publius said...

...then again, SOME people don't mind that fact at all, I guess. What should we call those shoulder shruggers? Maybe, Democrats?

Danielk said...

Here's the thing about that analogy -- when the war was over, the surviving Jews weren't begging us to leave Germany. And also, Hitler HAD weapons when we went in.

Publius said...

Well, you are not wholly correct in your analogy.

First of all, "the Jews" were not who we invaded. They were a tiny minority of Germany.

Secondly, the western media of the day were, within only a few short months, saying that the US had "lost the peace" in Europe because all the nations there were protesting for us to leave.

Lastly, Germany had WMDs and so did Iraq. We found plenty of them (but not nearly as many as we and every other nation's intelligence services thought, granted).

And the only reason we DIDN'T find as many as we might have is because Bush wasted his time with the UN for too long trying to get the useless, feckless, unnecessary body of tyrants and idiots to "approve" his Iraq actions. Saddam is well known to have shipped many, many truckloads of them to Syria.

Why ANY American cares about the UN is impossible to figure.

Danielk said...

I was going to let this go, but this has been bothering me for a while now... if you think you're going to be invaded, are you really going to ship all your weapons out of the country? What kind of sense does that make?

On the other hand, if you're under economic sanctions for a decade, you probably can't afford to develop and maintain weapons. That's why there were sanctions, you know.