| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37674 Activity:high |
5/13 Halfway to Vietnam:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-33.htm
The funny thing is, this doesn't even include the $50B being
asked for right now.
\_ Good figures and decent arguments, but the thing is no matter
what you say, pro-Iraq war people (such as emarkp) will
always counter claim that the invasion made the world safer,
which is an argument that you can't prove them wrong. And people
like that will argue that because we are brave and have
principles, the new Iraq will be much better in the long run,
with Democracy, and Freedom, and Western ideas spread around
Middle East, hence we did the right thing, blah blah blah. And
once people like that reason in such logic alone, they
have no choice but to consider every other argument as heresy.
These are the same people who even if they gained insights
from your perspective, they'll still not admit mistakes because
they're brought up with the idea that it's better to be
firm and to stand up for your belief than to be wrong [from
other people's perspective]. So to make my point short,
I don't think this article contributes to anything.
I for one am tired of seeing all these articles that point out
why the war is good/bad. I'd rather see articles that make
proposals and extensive academic studies (based on history,
economics, and things like that) on how to make Iraq better,
cheaper, safer, and faster.
\_ What good are extensive studies when those in power don't read?
\_ Good point. That's why it's important for voters to vote for
someone who is somewhat intelligent, open minded, and did
well in school without having to make academic donations.
\_ Personally I'd trust someone w/ common sense rather
than an over-educated joker. Now a under-educated
joker w/o common sense is a whole other matter.
\_ Are you sure that's what emarkp really thinks?
\_ Obviously Korea and WWII were horrible ideas as well, thank God
you appeasers were not around then.
you cowards were not around then.
\_ They were. They were just vastly outweighed by the clear
political and moral imperative of fighting those wars. Can you
say the same about Iraq? Oh, and nice bit of sophistry,
labelling those who question the legitimacy and wisdom of
invading Iraq "appeasers." I guess they're all traitors. -John
\_ Actually there were many people in this country who thought
that America should stay out of WWII, b/c the Nazi's were
correct in what they were doing (Lindberg comes to mind).
There were still others who believed that America should
not interfere in Europe's internal conflicts. FDR wanted
to go to war much earlier, but didn't have public support
till Pearl Harbor (the invasion of Poland wasn't enough
for many people).
The Globe, ie. Jew York Times, was I'm sure the same rag
whining about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. As always with
leftists, its better to appease tyrants then take action.
\_ ok, when are we going to take out Saudi Arabia? most
of sucide bombers are Saudi nationals, most of 9/11 hijackers
are Saudis... I am waiting for your action to take on
such tyrants.
\_ We are taking on the Saudi's to some extent. At this
point it is probably better to push them to fix their
problems rather than go in there with guns blazing.
\_ why not? what make you think we can fix their problem?
\_ why not? what make you think we can fix their
problem?
\_
\_ The way I see it the main thing that leads to
terrorism and despotism is poverty and a lack of
education. Both are present in SA. The best way to
combat poverty and lack of education is with
liberalization of social and economic policies. While
this can be achieved by military force, the
preferable method is achieve it by peaceful internal
transformation.
The Saudi power structure includes some people who
see the need to liberalize (even if they don't like
the religious import of that decision). These people
will likely take control of the nation in the
foreseeable future. A military intervention at this
point will mean that these people won't be able to
institute liberalized policies in the future, so
whatever would be gained in short term would be
offest in the long term.
foreseeable future (via succession). A military
intervention at this point will mean that these
people won't be able to institute liberalized
policies in the future, so whatever would be gained
in short term would be offest in the long term.
The difference I see in Iraq (and NK) is that there
is no equivalent within the power structure.
As I see it the main problem w/ Iraq was that there
no way to fix the problem w/o going in guns blazing.
This is perhaps why NK is the next place we are going
rather than Iran.
Historically NK is similar to Iraq as well. We had
to go in to Iraq a 2d time b/c the first time the
civilian leadership didn't finish the job. Same w/
NK, Truman should have let MacArthur finish the job.
\_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China. That's
one of the reasons for his early retirement.
\_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China.
That's one of the reasons for his early retirement.
\_ MacArthur's threat was an intimidation tactic,
not even Truman believed that MacArthur would
really use nukes against China.
The real problem was that Truman wanted a
"limited" engagement and MacArthur wanted to
win. Given the amount of progress MacArthur
had made before he was relieved, and the fact
that the remaining 2 yrs of the war were a
managed retreat, Truman's decision to avoid
winning was a bad one, just like Bush I's
decision to not go to Baghdad and depose
Saddam was a bad one.
Saddam was a bad one. -jblack
Saddam was a bad one. [incorrect attribution
removed]
\_ Ah yes, the world is good or evil, and you either
win or lose. Narrow minded NEOCON TROLL ALERT!!!
\_ So you disagree w/ me? What are the
factual basis for your claims?
\_ So you disagree w/ me? What is the
factual basis for your claim?
\_ Why was Bush I's decision not to go to Baghdad
a bad one? His reasons for not going were to avoid
all the shitty problems we have in that country
today. We now know that the UN inspectors WERE
doing their job, there was no Al-Queda-Saddam
connection except in Cheney's imagination, and
we would be $300B and 1500+ soldiers lives richer.
\_ Several groups within Iraq rose up against
Saddam after we invaded Kuwait. Saddam's
army was on the run and the people were
opposed to him, it was a good opportunity
to rid the middle east of a useless dicator
and to ensure long term stability in the
region. The "problems" we are having now
may have been avoided. Even if they could
not be avoided, we had the advantage of
world opinion and internal resistance on
our side which would have made the whole
cleanup job MUCH easier.
Whether or not Saddam was building WMD or
the UN inspectors were doing their job is
largely irrelevant. There would have been
no need for UN inspectors w/o Saddam. We
could also have avoided years of military
expense involved in enforcing the no-fly
\_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
that Bush I truly feared: A civil
war between the sects.
zone.
I personally prefer resolution of issues
rather than uneasy compromises.
rather than uneasy compromises which is
why I view Bush I's decision as a mistake.
I do not mean to imply that I believe that
Bush II's decision to invade Iraq was
appropriate (at that point in time).
\_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
that Bush I truly feared: A civil
war between the sects. And of course
you can say all this stuff, you are
just projecting the best-case scenario
to something that didn't happen, just
like administration officials before
the invasion: That we would be greeted
as liberators and that the war would
pay for itself because of Iraq's oil
riches.
\_ I agree that it could have been
much harder than I make it out
be. However, it seems evident
that the cleanup would have been
much better because the whole
world was behind us at that point.
Perhaps some would have dropped
out during the extended cleanup
effort, but many (far more than
are part of the current "coalition")
would have remained to help out.
Re Civil War: While this remains
a possiblity, given the elections,
&c. I do not believe that it will
happen.
\_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer hip for
Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited wealth
and unlimited power has brought down most of the world's
great empires. There are always more dictators to fight, more
heathens to convert, more French to taunt, etc, than there is
time and money to do it all. When governments (and citizens)
throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits, then they are
surely on the road to ruin.
\_ Ok so NY Jews are 99% leftists so what am I supposed
to refer to them as? How do you know I'm not Jewish?
\_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer
hip for Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited
wealth and unlimited power has brought down most of the
world's great empires. There are always more dictators
to fight, more heathens to convert, more French to taunt,
etc, than there is time and money to do it all. When governments
(and citizens) throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits,
then they are surely on the road to ruin. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-33.htm Boston Globe Closing in on Vietnam by Derrick Z Jackson It is $80 billion and halfway home to Vietnam. The estimated cost of Vietnam in current dollars was $584 billion, accord ing to the Congressional Research Office. Iraq has already cost more in current dollars than either the Civil War or World War I It is about to pass the Korean War. As Bush appears dead set on certifying Iraq's elections, even if it has t he credibility of the Florida recount, his $80 billion brings us closer to certifying Iraq as, in financial terms, the most terrifying war on te rror in American history. Americans were made to believe we could defuse the most dangerous nation on earth in a bargain-basement rout. When former White House economic ad viser Lawrence Lindsay dared to suggest that an invasion would cost betw een $100 billion and $200 billion, White House budget director Mitch Dan iels popped up to say the estimate was ''very, very high." Daniels gave a cost of between $50 billion and $60 billion. Lindsay's est imate was also attacked by former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill who sa id, ''I don't know what Larry was thinking." There was General Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who dared to say in a Senate hearing that ''something on the order of several hundred th ousand soldiers" would be required after the invasion to maintain ''cont rol over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds o f ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." Shinseki said, ''I t takes significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed , all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a sit uation like this." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz rebuked that sober assessment. With each supplemental request, Iraq becomes the most wildly off the mark mission since Vietnam, making the neo-cons the biggest con artists of o ur generation. They claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction pointed at A merican air ducts and waterways. Instead we became as big a weapon of ma ss destruction as Saddam ever was -- assuming you believe the thousands of Iraqi civilians needlessly killed in our invasion were in fact human beings. Vice President Dick Cheney once boasted that American forces would be ''g reeted as liberators." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had ''b road and deep evidence" that once Saddam was captured, his former soldie rs would throw down their arms and lock arms in celebration over a free Iraq. But even the very capture of Saddam did not stop the tailspin of chaos. N early two years after the invasion, Iraq more resembles civil war than c ivil society. There were just as many attacks against US soldiers, Iraqi police, and civilians in the last month, 2,736, as there were in Septem ber. At his press conference Wednesday, he was so bent on displaying the sunny side of chaos, he said nothing in his opening remarks about the US soldiers who died on the si ngle deadliest day of the war for US troops. On the very same day that Bush said, ''Millions of Iraqi voters will show their bravery, their love of country, and their desire to live in freed om," one of the American unit commanders in Baghdad said the nation's ca pital was still ''enemy territory." While Bush was declaring in a most personal way, ''I firmly planted the f lag of liberty," Raad al-Naqib, a Baghdad dentist, told the New York Tim es, ''The Americans, they are part of the terrorism. They are so frighte ned, anything that happens to them, they start shooting right away." With the predictions of a protracted occupation becoming more solid by th e day, comparisons of Iraq with the costliest war in American history ar e no longer out of the question. It is certain that we are there in a massive way until close to 2010. Bus h said in April 2004 that American forces would stay ''not one day more" than necessary. But his military's own assessment is that it will take three to five year s to train a competent Iraqi security force. Once upon a time, Bush and the neo-cons promised a rout so complete that they talked openly about a ''catastrophic success" in which grateful Iraqis might stampede America n troops and create a humanitarian crisis. The request for another $80 billion only serves to confirm that success w as its own catastrophe. E-Mail This Article FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environme ntal, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and soci al justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyr ight Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material o n this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and ed ucational purposes. |