Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,646
A Strategic Trade-Up
Posted by Laurence Vance on August 22, 2012 02:44 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118622.html
In an interview published in the Hoover Digest, Condoleezza Rice was asked if the war in Iraq was worth it.
Question to Rice:
A simple last question on Iraq. We invade in 2003. The last troops come home in December 2011. There are different ways of accounting for it, but between those two dates, we spend at least $800 billion. We suffer more than 4,400 killed and more than 31,000 wounded. Estimates of Iraqis killed vary widely, but they seem to center on about 100,000. It is an immensely expensive and bloody conflict. Was it worth it?
In her answer she said:
We have succeeded in replacing a homicidal murderer, who put 400,000 of his own people in mass graves. You want to talk about a humanitarian disaster. He sought and had used weapons of mass destruction, had invaded his neighbors, was an implacable enemy of the United States. He’s been replaced with admittedly a fragile government in Iraq that will not invade its neighbors, that will not seek weapons of mass destruction, that will not be a cancer in the Middle East, and will be favorably disposed to the United States, becoming for instance the fourth-largest purchaser of American military equipment in the Middle East.
That’s called a strategic trade-up.
And in the Middle East, which after all was the source of the hatred that actually brought about the Al-Qaedas of the world. Yeah, it was worth it.
No Ms. Rice, it's actually called 4,400 U.S. soldiers dying in vain and for a lie.
Posted by Laurence Vance on August 22, 2012 02:44 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118622.html
In an interview published in the Hoover Digest, Condoleezza Rice was asked if the war in Iraq was worth it.
Question to Rice:
A simple last question on Iraq. We invade in 2003. The last troops come home in December 2011. There are different ways of accounting for it, but between those two dates, we spend at least $800 billion. We suffer more than 4,400 killed and more than 31,000 wounded. Estimates of Iraqis killed vary widely, but they seem to center on about 100,000. It is an immensely expensive and bloody conflict. Was it worth it?
In her answer she said:
We have succeeded in replacing a homicidal murderer, who put 400,000 of his own people in mass graves. You want to talk about a humanitarian disaster. He sought and had used weapons of mass destruction, had invaded his neighbors, was an implacable enemy of the United States. He’s been replaced with admittedly a fragile government in Iraq that will not invade its neighbors, that will not seek weapons of mass destruction, that will not be a cancer in the Middle East, and will be favorably disposed to the United States, becoming for instance the fourth-largest purchaser of American military equipment in the Middle East.
That’s called a strategic trade-up.
And in the Middle East, which after all was the source of the hatred that actually brought about the Al-Qaedas of the world. Yeah, it was worth it.
No Ms. Rice, it's actually called 4,400 U.S. soldiers dying in vain and for a lie.
