Iraq War Costs hit home

[oregonpackfan]

The National Priorities Project has a web site that helps bring the financial cost of the war for local communities, based on population. The site is:

www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar


I live in Washington County, Oregon. It has a population of nearly 500,000 people encompassing 732 square miles. It is located just west of Portland's Multnomah County. Its main industries are agriculture, manufacturing, and lumber.

Washington County taxpayers have paid nearly $700 million for the war thus far. Instead that money could have been used for:

141,955 people with health care
655,835 homes with renewable energy
14,385 public safety officers
11,765 music and arts teachers
66 new elementary teachers
104,429 Head Start places for children
11,903 elementary school teachers
119,509 scholarships for university students.

While national polls show that most Americans' concerns about the economy have surpassed the worries about the Iraq War, the two are linked.

So far, the United States has spent over $500 billion for the war. Much of that money is actually borrowed money from foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia. That means our children and grandchildren will be paying for the war on both the principal and the resulting interest on the loans.

Go to the website yourself and see how much your county and/or community has sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice for the war.

[Freak Out]

OPF...please stop it. The Iraqi's were mounting a surprise attack with all manner of Weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorist of all nature. We had to do it and it was worth every penny. I really regret never having voted for Dubya.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't suppose you guys know WHO is behind that website. Possibly Moveon.Org or some similar leftist outfit?

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy--salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc. Thus, it helps more than it hurts in an economic sense.

[oregonpackfan]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy--salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc. Thus, it helps more than it hurts in an economic sense.[/quote]

That theory is a mistaken myth, Texas. Studies have shown that when you compare other souces of employment, be they health care, transportation, education, etc. the area that creates the LEAST number of jobs is the military.







Print This Story E-mail This Story

The Economic Costs of the Iraq War
By Dean Baker
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Monday 07 May 2007

There have been several occasions where President Bush rejected suggestions that the United States adhere to the Kyoto agreement's targets to prevent global warming because this would hurt economic growth. This argument was the end of the conversation.

President Bush is right to be concerned about economic growth. It provides a basis for rising living standards. But his concern that reducing greenhouse gas emissions may slow growth is inconsistent with his apparent lack of concern about the economic damage done by the war in Iraq.

While it may be news to the general public, in standard economic models, wars and military spending almost always slow growth and lead to job loss. The reason that wars lead to slower growth in these models is essentially the same as the reason that standard models project slower growth due to restricting greenhouse gas emissions: The government is diverting resources from its most efficient uses. This makes the economy less efficient, therefore it grows less rapidly and creates fewer jobs.

People often think that military spending creates jobs because people get hired to build weapons and supply the military. But we can think of programs to combat global warming in exactly the same way. Instead of taxing people to discourage them from using gas or electricity, we can simply pay them to buy more fuel efficient cars or make their homes more fuel efficient.

If the government pays people either to build weapons or to be more energy efficient, it needs the money to cover the costs. It can either raise taxes to get the money or it can borrow. If it raises taxes, then it's easy to see how higher taxes can pull money out of people's pockets and slow the economy. However, if it borrows (as it is doing now to pay for the war), then it leads to higher interest rates. Higher interest rates typically reduce house and car buying and lead to a higher dollar, and therefore, a higher trade deficit. Reduced house and car purchases and a larger trade deficit slow economic growth and job creation.

The basic story for both the war and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is the same: Standard economic models predict slower growth and fewer jobs. The only difference is that the politicians and the media have chosen to talk about the economic impact of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while completely ignoring the economic impact of the Iraq war and higher military spending more generally.

In order to better inform the debate, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned the econometric forecasting firm Global Insight to simulate the impact of a sustained increase in military spending equal to one percentage point of GDP, or $140 billion annually at present (approximately the same increase that has taken place since 2001). Global Insight was selected because it has a highly respected econometric model and is one of the oldest econometric forecasting firms in the country (it was formed from the merger of WEFA and DRI).

The model showed that after an initial stimulus, the impact of higher military spending turns negative around the sixth year. By the tenth year, the economy is projected to have 464,000 fewer payroll jobs in the high-spending scenario. If the higher spending persists for 20 years, the simulation shows job loss reaching 670,000. The job loss is concentrated in construction and manufacturing, with the construction sector projected to lose 144,000 in the tenth year and the manufacturing sector 95,000. By the twentieth year, the number of construction jobs is projected to be 211,000 lower in the high military spending scenario.

The projections also show a considerably larger trade deficit, which would add roughly $1.8 trillion (in 2007 dollars) to the foreign debt in 20 years (approximately nine percent of GDP). In the twentieth year, car sales are projected to be 730,000 lower in the high military spending scenario, while housing starts and sales are projected to be down by 39,000 and 287,000, respectively.

While projections based on the Global Insight model should not be treated as the holy writ, most econometric models would show a comparable impact from higher military spending. Whether the war is worth these costs depends on what we think of the war.

What does not make sense, however, is to push a discussion of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions off the table because the necessary policies could slow growth, while the negative economic effects of the Iraq war or higher military spending never even gets mentioned. It is totally reasonable to be concerned about the impact of important policies on the economy and jobs, however this concern should apply to all policies, not just the policies that our political leaders don't like.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (www.conservativenannystate.org). He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.

-------

Jump to today's Truthout Features:

Print This Story E-mail This Story






© : t r u t h o u t 2008
| t r u t h o u t | issues | environment | labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia | donate | contact | subscribe | about us | rss feed | archive |

[texaspackerbacker]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy--salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc. Thus, it helps more than it hurts in an economic sense.[/quote]

That theory is a mistaken myth, Texas. Studies have shown that when you compare other souces of employment, be they health care, transportation, education, etc. the area that creates the LEAST number of jobs is the military.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granted, Oregon, and just why do you think that is? It is because many military people make just over subsistence level incomes. It is similar to welfare spending/social programs/whatever. ANY money injected gives some degree of stimulation to the economy. However, the money that has the least opportunity to trickle down does the least stimulation. That is a point that is usually lost on liberals when discussing tax cuts across the board, which by the nature of their fairness, benefit those with bigger incomes and subsequent bigger tax burdens more than they benefit lower levels.

I've heard that argument about global warming too--that the technology to "fix" it will stimulate the economy. It might make a minor dent, but not much when you consider the extremely much higher tax burden on people, as well of the significantly higher prices of just about everything caused by the "cure" to the idiocy of the manmade g.w. theory.

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't suppose you guys know WHO is behind that website. Possibly Moveon.Org or some similar leftist outfit?

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy--salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc. Thus, it helps more than it hurts in an economic sense.

Sorry, your wrong. If this was the case, our Gross National Product would have sent our economy through the roof, in turn trickling down jobs and financial security to Americans. We are now basically in the beginning of a recession.

This is the 1940s anymore where factory jobs could put a family of four in a nice middle class neighborhood with a Ford Station Wagon in the driveway. He have sent these factory jobs to other countries, or have minimized the cost of labor to maximize profit regardless if these jobs keep pace with inflation an the cost of living. American workers certainly won't get a raise comparable to % of increase in the cost of gasoline per gallon.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm assuming you left out a "not" in your last paragraph, Nutz. You also should have used the word "not" when you said we are basically in the beginning of a recession. Recession is a clearly defined economic term which has NOT occurred--two consecutive quarters of economic downturn--which we have NOT even had one.

You seem to be talking about the old argument the we are worse off because we have evolved from an industrialized economy to a service and distribution oriented economy. That argument, however, simply is belied by both the macro-economic situation and the lifestyle of people in areas where those industries have faded away. You find a helluva lot more of those people thriving than suffering.

[The Leaper]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

[red]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

the funny thing is you know the old bastard is going to now label leaper a lefty because he doesn't agree with the extreme rights wacked out preception on one thing

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

the funny thing is you know the old bastard is going to now label leaper a lefty because he doesn't agree with the extreme rights wacked out preception on one thing

You either 100% onboard with Tex, or you are against him.

[falco]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

the funny thing is you know the old bastard is going to now label leaper a lefty because he doesn't agree with the extreme rights wacked out preception on one thing

You either 100% onboard with Tex, or you are against him.

you got it wrong tyrone

if you're not 100% with tex, you're against AMERICA

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

the funny thing is you know the old bastard is going to now label leaper a lefty because he doesn't agree with the extreme rights wacked out preception on one thing

You either 100% onboard with Tex, or you are against him.

you got it wrong tyrone

if you're not 100% with tex, you're against AMERICA

Do you think i'm stupid?

THat was a given.

Tex=AmeriKKKa.

[Kiwon]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

[falco]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

right...because that totally applies to the topic of discussion.

[Scott Campbell]

It would have been nice if we were able to work out a 2 for 1 with Afghanistan going on at the same time.

[texaspackerbacker]

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy

Like the contract we are giving to Airbus to build our new fueling planes for the military instead of Boeing?

Sorry Tex. I'm fairly conservative, but anyone with half a sense of financial matters can recognize that the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on our economic resources when you consider the vast challenges we face in several key areas in the upcoming decades.

OH, no. Leaper has been brainwashed by the liberal media as well. Can they be stopped.

Leaper, you must immediately turn on rush on the radio, Fox on TV, and start reading ANYTHING BY KRISTOLL. DO IT NOW!!! For the love of god.

It is your only hope to returning to a good, normal american.

the funny thing is you know the old bastard is going to now label leaper a lefty because he doesn't agree with the extreme rights wacked out preception on one thing

You either 100% onboard with Tex, or you are against him.

you got it wrong tyrone

if you're not 100% with tex, you're against AMERICA

Do you think i'm stupid?

THat was a given.

Tex=AmeriKKKa.

Hey, I'm just trying to be a voice for normalcy and common sense in a sea of irrational hate and idiocy. I don't give a damn if somebody disagrees with me. There is an ironclad right to be wrong in this country, and some of you really get your money's worth on that right.

It's a shame that leftists can't discuss issues, though. But I guess that's understandable, because the leftist positions are so laughably and shamefully wrongheaded that I can't really blame you guys for not having the courage to even express your views.

[the_idle_threat]

I don't suppose you guys know WHO is behind that website. Possibly Moveon.Org or some similar leftist outfit?

The great majority of the money spent on the war goes right back into the American economy--salaries, contracts, equipment purchases, etc. Thus, it helps more than it hurts in an economic sense.

Sorry, your wrong. If this was the case, our Gross National Product would have sent our economy through the roof, in turn trickling down jobs and financial security to Americans. We are now basically in the beginning of a recession.

This is the 1940s anymore where factory jobs could put a family of four in a nice middle class neighborhood with a Ford Station Wagon in the driveway. He have sent these factory jobs to other countries, or have minimized the cost of labor to maximize profit regardless if these jobs keep pace with inflation an the cost of living. American workers certainly won't get a raise comparable to % of increase in the cost of gasoline per gallon.

Thank you, John Edwards.

[oregonpackfan]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

Ah yes, Kiwon. Get the politics of fear rolling.

If America does not "win" the war in Iraq, swarms of al-Qaida will come streaming into our country and destroying the very country we love.

We heard the same politics of fear during the Vietnam war. With the domino theory of spreading communism, if the United States did not "win" the Vietnam War, the communists would island-hop their way across the Pacific and finally storm the beaches of California.

After 12 years, $600 billion spent, and over 58,000 American soldiers lives snuffed out, the United States finally withdrew. None of the nightmare fears of America falling to communism ever materialized. What a waste that war was and what a waste this Iraq War is proving to be.

[Kiwon]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

right...because that totally applies to the topic of discussion.

Still frozen? Trouble typing? Let me help you.

"Right! That totally applies to the topic of discussion because $700 million spent by the good taxpayers of Washington County, Oregon on wiping out Islamic radicals like this guy is money well spent."

[Harlan Huckleby]

What a waste that war was and what a waste this Iraq War is proving to be.

I can't justify past losses. But all that matters is the situation moving forward. If we can prevent a large war by keeping relative peace for 2 to 4 years, that investment is well worth it strategically and from humanitarian perspective. Granted, that's a highly uncertain and debateable question, I respect either opinion on the merits of investing further.

You keep mentioning the past, even going back to the completely different situation in Vietnam. These are irrelevant points. You are just introducing emotion to cloud or avoid evaluating the facts we face today.

[the_idle_threat]

You keep mentioning ... the completely different situation in Vietnam. These are irrelevant points. You are just introducing emotion to cloud or avoid evaluating the facts we face today.

Quoted for truth,

The Vietnam war was a completely different conflict. It's over, man. Move on.

This situation is very different, and needs to be evaluated differently.

Even more ridiculous is the comparison being made by a different poster between the length of the current conflict and the length of hostilities in WWII. That's not apples and oranges---it's apples and lampshades.

[Kiwon]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

Ah yes, Kiwon. Get the politics of fear rolling.

If America does not "win" the war in Iraq, swarms of al-Qaida will come streaming into our country and destroying the very country we love.

Well, at least I'm glad to hear that you "love" the country.

Politics of fear? How about the politics of reality?

Iran claims to have 6,000 new centrifuges in defiance of the international community, Pro-western Bhutto is assassinated in Pakistan, Israel is under daily attack. Gee, what's to be fearful of? Everybody knows that the Amish were behind 9/11, not 19 Arab Wahhabi Muslims that were organized, funded and sent by Al-Qaida to the USA to train and practice for specific suicide missions. Those sneaky Amish!

Let's do some math. Add these figures:

1993 ........... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 ........... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 ......... 774

What'd you come up with? I got 7,514. That's 7,514 military deaths during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. But you already knew this, right?

You're worried about money? How about this article: Divorce, unwed parenting costing taxpayers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_on_re_us/fragmented_families;_ylt=AjHgG8V9iAtzVL4ceKk8yMhH2 ocA)

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.

Now I hope that you are an activist for marriage and abstinence and adoption so that U.S. taxpayers can save some money. The $450 that Planned Parenthood charges for an abortion may look like the easy way out but really isn't the best solution.

I guess you're in Jimmy Carter's camp. The imam in the above video link in his sermon from last Friday is also a Hamas government official. Jimmy Carter, the Christian infidel, is going to ask this guy, nicely, if he would like to live in peace with Israelis whom Palestinians teach their children to consider as half-breed dogs and encourage them to kill as suicide bombers.

Gee, I wonder what his response will be?

Who's living in reality and who's not?

[falco]

blah blah blah

[Partial]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

[The Leaper]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

The problem is that we are paying that 100x over, but this nation is no more secure today than it was on 9-10-01. The border security is a joke, and people continue to sneak crazy stuff on airplanes with ease.

[Deputy Nutz]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

The problem is that we are paying that 100x over, but this nation is no more secure today than it was on 9-10-01. The border security is a joke, and people continue to sneak crazy stuff on airplanes with ease.

I got a whole tube of Lamasil on the plane.

[Kiwon]

blah blah blah

A fine example of a typical falco post. Notice the attempt at disdain using the repetition of one-syllable words that he learned as a toddler.

Somebody's got his grumpy pants on today!

[Kiwon]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

The problem is that we are paying that 100x over, but this nation is no more secure today than it was on 9-10-01. The border security is a joke, and people continue to sneak crazy stuff on airplanes with ease.

Leaper, I agree that fraud, waste, and abuse is always a problem when the government is involved. But the fact that a number of terror plots have been stopped or uncovered counters your 9-10-01 assertion.

You are absolutely right about the borders though.

But Partial's right. You can't put a price tag on security and Americans ability to live their lives in relative freedom. 9-11-2001 changed everything and there's no going back. We have to accept the world as it is, protect ourselves, eliminate threats, and build strong alliances with other governments that share our values.

[red]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

The problem is that we are paying that 100x over, but this nation is no more secure today than it was on 9-10-01. The border security is a joke, and people continue to sneak crazy stuff on airplanes with ease.

I got a whole tube of Lamasil on the plane.

in your ass?

[The Leaper]

But the fact that a number of terror plots have been stopped or uncovered counters your 9-10-01 assertion.

I'm not sure uncovering a few terror plots proves that we are safer now than we were 7 years ago. IMO, the number of terrorist plots have greatly increased...so the likelihood of catching some of them will also increase. We've seen plenty of other successful terror attacks around the world as well since 9-11, although none on our soil.

Recently, we've seen bomb materials sit in a van outside of the Capitol in DC for months before they were detected. We've seen numerous security tests sneak questionable items through airport security with ease. Security at our ports is virtually non-existant. I'm not exactly enamored with our national security.

Just because something hasn't happened is not a sign that we are safer.

[red]

all it takes is one nut, from anywhere to finally snap and we have terrorist attack

it could be two white guys from michigan blowing up a federal building or a kid going nuts in high school and showing up to shoot the place up.

or some religious extremes to hijack some planes

we can maybe stop some big attacks

but its the little sudden ones that really scare me

the big ones are probably going to hit something that doesn't directly effect me, like 911. i didn't know anyone that was there, i don't even know anyone from NYC. however one of those little ones could happen right outside and effect me or someone i know

and we can't do a whole lot to prevent the little ones

[Freak Out]

blah blah blah

A fine example of a typical falco post. Notice the attempt at disdain using the repetition of one-syllable words that he learned as a toddler.

Somebody's got his grumpy pants on today!

It said about as much as you did as to why we went into Iraq and destroyed the treasury Kiwon. Has the Iraqi invasion stopped the attacks on Israel by the crazy Amish? Has it silenced the extremist Islamic rabble rousers? Has it stopped Iran from attempting to advance their nuclear programs?

[oregonpackfan]

[quote=oregonpackfan] What a waste that war was

You keep mentioning the past, even going back to the completely different situation in Vietnam. These are irrelevant points. You are just introducing emotion to cloud or avoid evaluating the facts we face today.

Harlan,

I do mention the past because of the statement "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Though there certainly are differences between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, there are many similarities. Our country appears to not have learned the mistakes we made in Vietnam.

Some of the mistakes include:

1. Believing in deceptive statments from our leaders. As I mentioned earlier, our leaders during the Vietnam era based justification of the Vietnam to prevent the domino theory of communism. If we did not stop the communists in Vietnam, that movement would spread across the Pacific to our Western Coast. It never happened after we finally pulled out.

In August of '64, our leaders reported on the Gulf of Tonkin incident where North Vietnamese PT-style boats attacked American ships for two days. That led to major escalation of American troops to the level of 500,000 in Vietnam. Only years later we discovered that attack NEVER happened! It was a pure fabrication by our American leaders, both civilian and military.

For the Iraq War, the deceptions from our leaders are almost too numerous to list. Saddam Hussain/Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack in any way, shape, or form. None of those 19 terrorists who hijacked those 4 planes were from Iraq. Hussain was not allied with al Qaida. Prior to the American invasion, there was no al Qaida in Iraq.

Despite the constant accusations from the Bush administration, there was no credible evidence Hussain had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the security of the United States. In addition, there was no evidence Hussain was importing weapons grade uranium from Niger. When Ambassador Joe Wilson refused to falsely report that Niger was exporting uranium to Iraq, the Bush administration outed his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA agent.

Up until late 2007, Bush repeatedly claimed that Iran was using its nuclear power program for nuclear weapons. The National Intelligence Estimate, a report from 16 American intelligence agencies, disputed that stance. It reported Iran ENDED that program in 2003.

Bush is continuing his verbal saber--rattling against Iran. How can Americans trust anything he states about the Middle East. His credibility is highly suspect.

2. A warped, intolerant view of American patriotism. In both war eras, the pro-war supporters claimed the only way to be a patriotic American was to support the war effort. It made no matter whether the wars are legally or morally justified. Despite the fact that an essential component of democracy is the ability to dissent, opponents of the war years ago were labeled "communist sympathizers" while today opponents are labeled as "Aiding the terrorists."

3. Indifference to the civilian deaths. In Vietnam, up to 1 million Vietnamese civilians were killed during that war. Estimates for Iraqi civilian deaths range from 30,000 to 600,000. Certainly most of those deaths were unintentional. Disturbingly, a number of Americans have just shrugged off those civilian deaths as Vietnamese "gooks" or Iraqi "ragheads."

4. Rise of the influence of the "Military Industrial Complex" where private business companies encourage American involvement in warfare so they can reap huge profits. The phrase "Military Industrial Complex" was not coined by some radical, left-winger. It was used by Dwight Eisenhower, a general, Normandy Invasion Commander, President, and a REPUBLICAN, in his departing speech in 1961.

In Vietnam, private companies like Dow Chemical, General Electric, and General Dynamics made huge profits. For the Iraq War, private companies with close ties to the Republic party continue to make huge gains like Haliburton(where Dick Cheney was the former CEO), Blackwater USA, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and Bechtel.

5. Viewpoint that in order for Americans to have freedom, we have to continually engage in warfare. Those who claim "Freedom is not free" often use this argument.

So yes, these are points why I bring up the past of Vietnam and compare it to our current conflict in Iraq. As a patriotic American, I do not want our country to repeat some of the same mistakes we have made in the past.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hmm....I wonder how many mosques, Islamic schools and madrasahs the government can build for $700 million in Washington County, Oregon?

Here's a guy that will gladly help with the planning:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

Ah yes, Kiwon. Get the politics of fear rolling.

If America does not "win" the war in Iraq, swarms of al-Qaida will come streaming into our country and destroying the very country we love.

Well, at least I'm glad to hear that you "love" the country.

Politics of fear? How about the politics of reality?

Iran claims to have 6,000 new centrifuges in defiance of the international community, Pro-western Bhutto is assassinated in Pakistan, Israel is under daily attack. Gee, what's to be fearful of? Everybody knows that the Amish were behind 9/11, not 19 Arab Wahhabi Muslims that were organized, funded and sent by Al-Qaida to the USA to train and practice for specific suicide missions. Those sneaky Amish!

Let's do some math. Add these figures:

1993 ........... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 ........... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 ......... 774

What'd you come up with? I got 7,514. That's 7,514 military deaths during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. But you already knew this, right?

You're worried about money? How about this article: Divorce, unwed parenting costing taxpayers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_on_re_us/fragmented_families;_ylt=AjHgG8V9iAtzVL4ceKk8yMhH2 ocA)

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.

Now I hope that you are an activist for marriage and abstinence and adoption so that U.S. taxpayers can save some money. The $450 that Planned Parenthood charges for an abortion may look like the easy way out but really isn't the best solution.

I guess you're in Jimmy Carter's camp. The imam in the above video link in his sermon from last Friday is also a Hamas government official. Jimmy Carter, the Christian infidel, is going to ask this guy, nicely, if he would like to live in peace with Israelis whom Palestinians teach their children to consider as half-breed dogs and encourage them to kill as suicide bombers.

Gee, I wonder what his response will be?

Who's living in reality and who's not?

Military deaths. Oh, lord. Don't bother breaking them down into those related to combat.

1) Are these figures from battles?
or 2) During some peacekeeping mission for UN?
Or 3) Something else


BTW, nice of you to leave out those injured in combat. We wouldn't want those to count would we.

Bhutto: Um, which Paki gov't that has really done nothing has the U.S. supported. Oops.

Isreal: What is your point. Israel has been under daily attack throughout all U.S. presidencies.

Hamas: LOL. Who exactly rushed the lebanese to have free elections despite Fatah begging the U.S. not to do it..that they weren't ready. One man..prez bush. You don't like freely elected leaders now? You reap what you sow buddy.

[Gunakor]

Even more ridiculous is the comparison being made by a different poster between the length of the current conflict and the length of hostilities in WWII. That's not apples and oranges---it's apples and lampshades.

Why on earth would it take longer to defeat Iraqi militias than it took to defeat the Nazi regime? Certainly the Nazis were far superior both in technology and training than the Iraqi militias. Yet we were able to crush them in 6 years, and are struggling against Iraqis. Why?

The point is we have to END this war. More Americans have lost thier lives in the course of this war than there were who lost thier lives to start this war. Any speculation as to what would have happened if the Dems were in charge is just that - speculation. Nobody knows for sure. But I can assume that the death toll for Americans would be substantially less had this war not been drug out 6+ years, and am certain that the Dems would not have let that happen.

Now we remain in Iraq to defend... Iraqis? Americans GI's are still losing thier lives and it's not even to defend America anymore. America is trying to bully other countries into adopting our form of democracy, and American GI's are paying for it with thier lives. Who are we to tell other countries how to govern themselves? If the Iraqis wanted democracy so badly, they'd have stood up for themselves and revolted and paid for that revolution with thier own lives. Why should the liberation of Iraq be paid for in American lives? IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!

America is a free democratic nation, and I thought our military was to protect US from any other country forcing thier way of life on us. Now it seems our military is being ordered to force our way of life on other countries. Hypocritical.

How would you like it if another nation came and occupied the United States and FORCED thier system of government on us? You'd be fighting it tooth and nail, same as the Iraqis are. You'd continue fighting it for as long as you had breath, same as I expect the Iraqis to do. This is an endless war. Iraqis are fighting us because they do not want us in THIER country, and really we have no right to be there. Iraq never has been and never will be America.

F*ck it, let the militias run things. Let Iran invade and occupy Iraq now that Saddam is gone. Let that country turn to shit, I don't care. Keep our eyes turned there, and if they make any threatening moves twoard OUR country THEN we act. Let the Iraqi Liberation be paid for in Iraqi life. Defend OUR borders, not somebody else's.

[oregonpackfan]

How would you like it if another nation came and occupied the United States and FORCED thier system of government on us? You'd be fighting it tooth and nail, same as the Iraqis are.

[/quote]

Excellent point, Gunakor,

I think too many Americans forget that our ancestors, the American Colonists, did not like being invaded, occupied, and ruled by the strongest country in the world--England!

For that era, England had the strongest navy in the world and the strongest army in the world. Have Americans forgotten who won the Revolutionary War?

[Harlan Huckleby]

So yes, these are points why I bring up the past of Vietnam and compare it to our current conflict in Iraq.

none of your bullet points give us any guidance as to how we should proceed. You aren't addressing the thorny mess, other than to conclude that we get out.

Richard Lugar is trying to focus on reality:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103249.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why on earth would it take longer to defeat Iraqi militias than it took to defeat the Nazi regime? Certainly the Nazis were far superior both in technology and training than the Iraqi militias. Yet we were able to crush them in 6 years, and are struggling against Iraqis. Why? .

insurgencies are a different animal. It takes 10 years to crush an insurgency. We need to get Iraq able to deal with its own insurgency.

But layered on top of this are about 3 or 4 civil wars. We are looking to diffuse those thru political compromise.

There's been progress. Another factor to consider is that by the time the next pres gets in there, we'll have a better idea if the situation is salvagable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

For that era, England had the strongest navy in the world and the strongest army in the world. Have Americans forgotten who won the Revolutionary War?

We are fighting a limited slice of the population. We already have al-Qaida on the run, have earned some trust of Sunni population, and the Sunni Insurgency is tamped down 75%. That's a lot.

This Sadir guy seems menacing. We'll know more about his future next fall, if/when his faction competes in provincial elections. The Southern half of Iraq is destined to be an autonimous region heavily influenced by Iran. Maybe Sadir wants a piece of the corruption chain there. He's the puzzle piece to be solved. Maybe he will fit-in ok, or maybe he needs to be crushed.

[Gunakor]

Why on earth would it take longer to defeat Iraqi militias than it took to defeat the Nazi regime? Certainly the Nazis were far superior both in technology and training than the Iraqi militias. Yet we were able to crush them in 6 years, and are struggling against Iraqis. Why? .

insurgencies are a different animal. It takes 10 years to crush an insurgency. We need to get Iraq able to deal with its own insurgency.

But layered on top of this are about 3 or 4 civil wars. We are looking to diffuse those thru political compromise.

There's been progress. Another factor to consider is that by the time the next pres gets in there, we'll have a better idea if the situation is salvagable.

Who cares if it's salvageable or not? It's not our problem. It's not our war, or at least it doesn't need to be. Let the Iraqis deal with the insurgency without sending Americans to die alongside them. If Democratic Iraq falls to the insurgency then Iraq will be a dictatorship once again. I don't see how even that would be a problem for Americans. For all of the years Iraq was under Hussein's dictatorship, they never posed any threat to the American homeland. The only Americans who have ever died as a result of Iraqi conflict have done so in the middle east. I could care less whether or not the middle east is stable, or democratic, or free.

I'd keep my satellites pointed in thier direction to keep an eye on what is going on there, but I'd be watching from the western hemisphere. If they started to make aggresive moves twoard America or it's european allies then I'd consider military action. If they are only aggressively fighting amongst themselves then whatever, let them kill themselves off. It isn't going to make my life any more difficult.

I guess, in the end, I simply would not commit to war and put American lives on the line unless it were absolutely 100% essential to defending our own borders and our own people. Which is why I was an avid supporter of the war against Al Queida, but not so much in the war in Iraq. I don't see how fighting the Iraqi insurgency is helping to protect U.S. borders or U.S. citizens. It's all about protecting Iraqis at this point.

[texaspackerbacker]

Freedom isn't free. I would pay that money 100x over if it keeps my family from being blown up by the crazies.

The problem is that we are paying that 100x over, but this nation is no more secure today than it was on 9-10-01. The border security is a joke, and people continue to sneak crazy stuff on airplanes with ease.

It's simply NOT true that the nation is no more secure than 9/10/01 or whatever.

Do you think it is LUCK that we haven't been hit with a repeat of 9/11?

Sure, spread the credit around--enhanced security at home, surveillance and monitoring of terrorist communications, strict handling and harsh interrogation of terrorist prisoners, etc. (ALL of which also was opposed by the Dem/libs), but don't leave out the KEY PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.

Why do you think our troops are so overwhelmingly supportive of administration policies on the war, even though they are the ones with the most to lose--potentially their lives? Because they KNOW that their service and sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly LINKED to preventing terrorism at home. Never mind all the lame arguments about no WMDs, Saddam not being complicit with al Qaeda, etc. Even if true--and that is FAR from a sure thing, it does NOT diminish the fact that the war--specifically, al Qaeda's commitment there--has contributed significantly to the prevention of mass murder of Americans at home. How can people deny this? More importantly, how can people ridicule or deny the importance of this? How could ANYTHING be more important than saving the lives of large numbers of Americans, as well as our way of life--our freedoms, our comforts, etc., ALL of which would be severely jeopardized by repeats of 9/11?

This thread is about cost in the financial sense. Well, all the cost of the war so far have NOT reached the amount of the economic hit from 9/11 alone. And some people claim the war cost isn't justified by preventing repeats of that?

[Freak Out]

For that era, England had the strongest navy in the world and the strongest army in the world. Have Americans forgotten who won the Revolutionary War?

We are fighting a limited slice of the population. We already have al-Qaida on the run, have earned some trust of Sunni population, and the Sunni Insurgency is tamped down 75%. That's a lot.

This Sadir guy seems menacing. We'll know more about his future next fall, if/when his faction competes in provincial elections. The Southern half of Iraq is destined to be an autonimous region heavily influenced by Iran. Maybe Sadir wants a piece of the corruption chain there. He's the puzzle piece to be solved. Maybe he will fit-in ok, or maybe he needs to be crushed.

The Sunni leaders put away their guns for the time being for a number of reasons...a big one is $$.

Sadr's organization is the LARGEST distributor of aid in Iraq. If we along with the Iraqi government take him out we better damn well be ready to step in....and were not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Sunni leaders put away their guns for the time being for a number of reasons...a big one is $$.

they are being paid to act as local security forces. I se -e that as a good step.


Sadr's organization is the LARGEST distributor of aid in Iraq. If we along with the Iraqi government take him out we better damn well be ready to step in....and were not.

I just remember a factoid. Sadir had control of Health ministry for a while. And his allies still control operationof most hospitals.
Sadir's organization is like Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is not necessarily terrible, but his group can't remain a seperate government.

Sadir is the hard part. I'm willing to wait awhile and see if his faction can be reconciled with rest of Shitte.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Who cares if it's salvageable or not? It's not our problem. It's not our war, or at least it doesn't need to be. Let the Iraqis deal with the insurgency without sending Americans to die alongside them.

this is not like vietnam where we were able to walk away and make a clean break. There was a lot of hell in Cambodia & Vietnam after '75 that we did not pay a price for.

Iraq is TOTALLY different. A war could spread and affect world economy. And we will be blamed for the consequences, rightfully so. And it will be on TV this time.

[red]

How would you like it if another nation came and occupied the United States and FORCED thier system of government on us? You'd be fighting it tooth and nail, same as the Iraqis are.



Excellent point, Gunakor,

I think too many Americans forget that our ancestors, the American Colonists, did not like being invaded, occupied, and ruled by the strongest country in the world--England!

For that era, England had the strongest navy in the world and the strongest army in the world. Have Americans forgotten who won the Revolutionary War?

lets not forget that we were willing to blow up the earth 50 times over and kill everyone on it to stop the USSR for making us all commies[/quote]

[texaspackerbacker]

Quote:
How would you like it if another nation came and occupied the United States and FORCED thier system of government on us? You'd be fighting it tooth and nail, same as the Iraqis are.



Excellent point, Gunakor, NOT!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you be such an idiot?

We are INFLICTING freedom on the TYRANNY-LOVING people of the world?

Specifically, the question is, are Muslims some kind of sub-human creatures, unlike anybody else, who hate the idea of being free and embrace the idea of a police state with rape rooms and governments rounding up people and murdering them indiscriminately? Are they hateful violent murderously genocidal automatons who need to be put down like rabid dogs--as opposed to humans, capable of happiness, creative thought, and compassion?

You forum leftists like to ridicule the idea of killing our enemies--most often Muslims in today's world--before they get a chance to kill us. You reject the idea of large scale Muslim support for the terrorists, yet you jump all over the idea those same Muslims aren't capable of normal human feeling and love of freedom, and are not capable of participating in the governing of themselves.

Or maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong direction. Maybe you left wingers merely think there is something WRONG about the American Way--our freedom, our representative government, etc.

Sheesh! Get real and show some pride in your/our own wonderful way of life, and have the balls to express it!

[Gunakor]

Quote:
How would you like it if another nation came and occupied the United States and FORCED thier system of government on us? You'd be fighting it tooth and nail, same as the Iraqis are.



Excellent point, Gunakor, NOT!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you be such an idiot?

We are INFLICTING freedom on the TYRANNY-LOVING people of the world?

Specifically, the question is, are Muslims some kind of sub-human creatures, unlike anybody else, who hate the idea of being free and embrace the idea of a police state with rape rooms and governments rounding up people and murdering them indiscriminately? Are they hateful violent murderously genocidal automatons who need to be put down like rabid dogs--as opposed to humans, capable of happiness, creative thought, and compassion?

You forum leftists like to ridicule the idea of killing our enemies--most often Muslims in today's world--before they get a chance to kill us. You reject the idea of large scale Muslim support for the terrorists, yet you jump all over the idea those same Muslims aren't capable of normal human feeling and love of freedom, and are not capable of participating in the governing of themselves.

Or maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong direction. Maybe you left wingers merely think there is something WRONG about the American Way--our freedom, our representative government, etc.

Sheesh! Get real and show some pride in your/our own wonderful way of life, and have the balls to express it!


If you get ANYTHING from what I've been saying Tex, it's that if the Iraqis wanted freedom so badly, they'd have grown some balls and stood up to Saddam and drove him out of power themselves. It is not our problem that Iraq was under a strict dictatorship. It was not our responsibility to liberate them. Whatever you have to say about it, the liberation of IRAQ is not worth AMERICAN lives.

Christ man, how many more Americans will have to die for another country's freedom before it becomes too many?

There is nothing wrong with our way of life. I enjoy it very much. But we attained this freedom by fighting for it on our own. Other countries can do the same. 3500+ Americans have lost thier lives in the intrest of IRAQI freedom. I would rather see 100k Iraqis give thier lives to liberate themselves.

In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?

[texaspackerbacker]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?

[Gunakor]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?


Tex I simply disagree with you that the war on Iraq has anything to do with the prevention of mass murders in America. I know we have not been hit a second time since 9/11, but I credit that more to improved security measures and the swift response to 9/11 against Al Queida in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was/is being fought for different reasons IMO.

There is no disingenuousness at all. I have friends who are over there right now - on thier second tours fighting this war. I have a brother who is worried about being recalled to Iraq. None of us were opposed to fighting Al Queida following 9/11 but they are a little upset about being recalled to second tours in Iraq. That isn't what they signed up for, it's just what happened.

As far as the deficit, I really worry about how the inflated spending of borrowed money in this war will affect future generations of Americans who, while having nothing to do with this war themselves, will have that deficit placed on thier shoulders to repay. Our kids and grandkids will be affected by this, and that bothers me. They shouldn't have to pay for an extremely costly war they had nothing to do with.

[hoosier]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?

Your argument strikes me as a bizarre inversion of cause and effect. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the invasion of Iraq is justified because, after the fact and during the occupation, something called "Al Quaeda" decided to turn Iraq into a battleground between radical Islam and the US. It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on this thesis of yours: Was the invasion justified from the beginning because there was a chance that "Al Queda" would choose to take the US on over there instead of here? Or did the justification get conferred retroactively once "Al Queda" made its decision? Let's imagine that, instead of invading Iraq, W had decided to invade and occupy Iran or North Korea or--why not?--Saudi Arabia. If "Al Queda" had declared that country to be the "central front" in the war against the American way of life, would those invasions have been equally justified? Would any invasion whatsoever assume legitimacy under your thesis, provided that it served the tactical purpose of attracting attention from "Al Queda"?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Your argument strikes me as a bizarre inversion of cause and effect.

I was just about to jump on you for deliberately misunderstanding Tex. Obviously he knows Iraq had limitted connection with terrorism @911 time, and certainly was not al Qaida haven.

Then I read Tex's post, in particular the part about promoting democracy being unimportant part of our goals. :?:

Hell, that was the ONLY factor I cared about!

I eagerly await Tex's explanation, perhaps I gave him too much credit.

[GoPackGo]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?

Your argument strikes me as a bizarre inversion of cause and effect. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the invasion of Iraq is justified because, after the fact and during the occupation, something called "Al Quaeda" decided to turn Iraq into a battleground between radical Islam and the US. It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on this thesis of yours: Was the invasion justified from the beginning because there was a chance that "Al Queda" would choose to take the US on over there instead of here? Or did the justification get conferred retroactively once "Al Queda" made its decision? Let's imagine that, instead of invading Iraq, W had decided to invade and occupy Iran or North Korea or--why not?--Saudi Arabia. If "Al Queda" had declared that country to be the "central front" in the war against the American way of life, would those invasions have been equally justified? Would any invasion whatsoever assume legitimacy under your thesis, provided that it served the tactical purpose of attracting attention from "Al Queda"?

Good post Hoosier.

[oregonpackfan]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?

Your argument strikes me as a bizarre inversion of cause and effect. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the invasion of Iraq is justified because, after the fact and during the occupation, something called "Al Quaeda" decided to turn Iraq into a battleground between radical Islam and the US. It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on this thesis of yours: Was the invasion justified from the beginning because there was a chance that "Al Queda" would choose to take the US on over there instead of here? Or did the justification get conferred retroactively once "Al Queda" made its decision? Let's imagine that, instead of invading Iraq, W had decided to invade and occupy Iran or North Korea or--why not?--Saudi Arabia. If "Al Queda" had declared that country to be the "central front" in the war against the American way of life, would those invasions have been equally justified? Would any invasion whatsoever assume legitimacy under your thesis, provided that it served the tactical purpose of attracting attention from "Al Queda"?

The reasoning that al-Qaida would choose a country to take a stand against the United States is flawed. al-Qaida is a terrorist organization.

Terrorist organizations do not want to be visibly seen in just one country and/or do their fighting out in the open. They are not large scale military organizations centered in one country like a Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII.

They are loosely organized and distributed around the world. Don't forget that al-Qaida has hit the subways in Madrid, Spain and the busses in London. The al-Qaida members in Britain were radical Moslems who were born and raised in England. Most of them had never been to the Middle East when they committed their crimes.

It is disturbing to me how many Americans believe that al-Qaida is based primarily in Iraq. They are distributed throughout much of the world.

Even if the United States were to "Win" the war in Iraq, it would have little effect on the al-Qaida groups.

[Gunakor]

You know what? I actually agree with what you're saying--although I suspect there is a high level of disingenuousness when you start sounding so concerned for American deaths and American costs.

The thing is, though, the installation of American-style freedom and representative democracy was NOT the goal of our invasion of Iraq, merely a collateral benefit--and NOT EVEN the primary collateral benefit--looking at it from an American perspective, as we all, of course, do, right?

You asked, "In any case, what does the liberation of Iraq have to do with 9/11?". Do I really have to go through it all again?

Al Qaeda made disrupting the stabilization of Iraq their "central front" in their war against America--de-emphasizing the hitting of America at home. You want to be in denial of that? Fine, but it's indisputable that we have not been hit during the time frame of the war. Do you think that is merely an accident, or what? Or do you even care about preventing the mass murder of Americans?

Your argument strikes me as a bizarre inversion of cause and effect. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the invasion of Iraq is justified because, after the fact and during the occupation, something called "Al Quaeda" decided to turn Iraq into a battleground between radical Islam and the US. It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on this thesis of yours: Was the invasion justified from the beginning because there was a chance that "Al Queda" would choose to take the US on over there instead of here? Or did the justification get conferred retroactively once "Al Queda" made its decision? Let's imagine that, instead of invading Iraq, W had decided to invade and occupy Iran or North Korea or--why not?--Saudi Arabia. If "Al Queda" had declared that country to be the "central front" in the war against the American way of life, would those invasions have been equally justified? Would any invasion whatsoever assume legitimacy under your thesis, provided that it served the tactical purpose of attracting attention from "Al Queda"?

The reasoning that al-Qaida would choose a country to take a stand against the United States is flawed. al-Qaida is a terrorist organization.

Terrorist organizations do not want to be visibly seen in just one country and/or do their fighting out in the open. They are not large scale military organizations centered in one country like a Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII.

They are loosely organized and distributed around the world. Don't forget that al-Qaida has hit the subways in Madrid, Spain and the busses in London. The al-Qaida members in Britain were radical Moslems who were born and raised in England. Most of them had never been to the Middle East when they committed their crimes.

It is disturbing to me how many Americans believe that al-Qaida is based primarily in Iraq. They are distributed throughout much of the world.

Even if the United States were to "Win" the war in Iraq, it would have little effect on the al-Qaida groups.


Even if this is true, Tex would point to the "collateral benefits" of liberating Iraq as his justification for the war.

I don't question Tex's love for America. I'm not calling him unpatriotic for supporting this war indefinitely. His goals are noble, it's his methods that I disagree with. We all want to see a safer America. Some just feel like we are paying a higher price, both in terms of money and in human life, than we absolutely have to. Anyone who disagrees, to each thier own opinion on the matter. But don't call us unpatriotic for having our own opinion, and don't question our desire to prevent more mass murder on American soil. Nobody on either side of the issue wants to see another 9/11.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex's argument is exactly that.

I can't wait for the next country we invade so we can have al queda focus on attacking us there instead of here in the homeland.

Maybe someplace nice like New Zealand.

His whole argument sounds suspiciously like the old...we have to destroy the village to save it.

[hoosier]

Tex's argument is exactly that.

I can't wait for the next country we invade so we can have al queda focus on attacking us there instead of here in the homeland.

Maybe someplace nice like New Zealand.

His whole argument sounds suspiciously like the old...we have to destroy the village to save it.

But there's one key difference. With the Vietnam era "we had to destroy the village to save it" rhetoric, there was at least the pretense of "civilizing" mission, even if the war was really about economics and global power. Power couldn't operate without a pretext. Now, at least in Tex's unfiltered version of things, that pretext has all but disappeared. Now it's acknowledged and even celebrated that the war is nothing more or less than a power struggle. I have to say, as much as it makes me uneasy, I much prefer Tex's unfiltered version to the filtered BS about democracy (apologies to Harlan and everyone else who acted in good faith in supporting the war).

[Harlan Huckleby]

The reasoning that al-Qaida would choose a country to take a stand against the United States is flawed. al-Qaida is a terrorist organization ... Even if the United States were to "Win" the war in Iraq, it would have little effect on the al-Qaida groups.

You've taken the argument too far. aQ clearly hoped to establish itself in Iraq, and they haven't given up yet.

We haven't defeated aQ in Iraq, exactly. What is more accurate is that the people of Iraq have significantly turned against aQ.

A relatively successful outcome in Iraq would be huge help in the political struggle going on in the Islamic world. Perhaps that outcome is best achieved by getting U.S. entirely out of Iraq, I'm willing to entertain that possibility. Or maybe our presence is currently a net positive, that's my judgement.

Ten years from now, conditions in Iraq will be THE symbol of what the U.S. stands for in relation to the ARabs. Man, to say IRaq doesn't matter is just wrong.

Oregon, you are exhibiting Tex-like behaviour: ignoring realities that don't fit your ideology.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex's argument is exactly that.

I can't wait for the next country we invade so we can have al queda focus on attacking us there instead of here in the homeland.

Maybe someplace nice like New Zealand.

His whole argument sounds suspiciously like the old...we have to destroy the village to save it.

But there's one key difference. With the Vietnam era "we had to destroy the village to save it" rhetoric, there was at least the pretense of "civilizing" mission, even if the war was really about economics and global power. Power couldn't operate without a pretext. Now, at least in Tex's unfiltered version of things, that pretext has all but disappeared. Now it's acknowledged and even celebrated that the war is nothing more or less than a power struggle. I have to say, as much as it makes me uneasy, I much prefer Tex's unfiltered version to the filtered BS about democracy (apologies to Harlan and everyone else who acted in good faith in supporting the war).

I don't know where you get that from. Tex just switches depending on his period.

One day it is to protect the homeland, the next is to bring freedom.

Tex's version is, essentially, that it is better to fight overseas in someone else's house than our own.

Of course, this is a limiting framework for argument.

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess I didn't make myself clear, based on the plethora of interpretations of what I said.

The short version is this: BOTH improving the lot of 27 million or so Iraqis with freedom and representative government AND preventing repeats of 9/11-type terrorism or worse in America were BY-PRODUCTS--what I referred to as collateral benefits--of invading Iraq. From an American perspective, of course, the more important of the two is preventing mass murder of Americans at home.

As for the original reasons or goals of invading Iraq, I see those as mostly IRRELEVANT now--old news. But if pinned down to provide my idea of what those reasons were, I would say, in this approximate order, the reasons were: 1. WMDs--much maligned because not found, but very probably real 2. Saddam's support of terrorism in general, and yes, al Qaeda in particular--contrary to the wrong statement one of you made about Saddam's Iraq NOT being a safe haven 3. Oil--libs may disparage that, but it is a significant part of the economy of America and the world 4. What I referred to as mainly a collateral benefit, but probably in actuality, one of the lesser reasons or goals--setting up a shining example of freedom and representative government--that is more than just do-gooderism, it benefits America to the extent that it leads to a more stable and peaceful world.

As I said, though, original intent is a lot less important than hindsight result--whether one considers that hindsight result good or bad. If that wasn't true, you guys wouldn't be whining about cost and sacrifice.

Somebody asked--probably in a rhetoric or disingenuous way--if we had invaded North Korea, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia, would al Qaeda have made the decision to disrupt things there? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it. North Korea, of course, would not even be remotely feasible for that sort of thing. Even in Iran and Saudi Arabia, however, it would have been a lot more difficult. Why? Because you have mostly homogeneous populations there. What al Qaeda did in Iraq was to blow up the Samarra mosque and carry out a series of other bloodbaths to stir up sectarian violence--hoping even for civil war--just like American leftists were hoping for civil war there. The situation would have been entirely different in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Somebody also disparaged the idea of the LINK between the war and the prevention of repeats of 9/11. As I said, it certainly wasn't the ONLY factor. Sure, enhanced security, surveillance and monitoring of terrorist communications, and harsh handling of terrorist prisoners ALL had a part in it, and ALL were opposed by the damned American leftists that you guys idolize. But you just can't get around the fact that Bush's methods, INCLUDING interventionist foreign policy and pre-emptive war--taking the War on Terror to the enemy's corner of the world--also had a lot to do with it.

I commend the opposition in this discussion for actually talking about issues , for once, instead of merely resorting to sarcasm and diversion.

[Kiwon]

The reasoning that al-Qaida would choose a country to take a stand against the United States is flawed. al-Qaida is a terrorist organization ... Even if the United States were to "Win" the war in Iraq, it would have little effect on the al-Qaida groups.

You've taken the argument too far. aQ clearly hoped to establish itself in Iraq, and they haven't given up yet.

We haven't defeated aQ in Iraq, exactly. What is more accurate is that the people of Iraq have significantly turned against aQ.

A relatively successful outcome in Iraq would be huge help in the political struggle going on in the Islamic world. Perhaps that outcome is best achieved by getting U.S. entirely out of Iraq, I'm willing to entertain that possibility. Or maybe our presence is currently a net positive, that's my judgement.

Ten years from now, conditions in Iraq will be THE symbol of what the U.S. stands for in relation to the ARabs. Man, to say IRaq doesn't matter is just wrong.

Oregon, you are exhibiting Tex-like behaviour: ignoring realities that don't fit your ideology.

:shock: Minus the shot at Tex, I completely agree.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As for the original reasons or goals of invading Iraq, I see those as mostly IRRELEVANT now--old news. But if pinned down to provide my idea of what those reasons were, I would say, in this approximate order, the reasons were: 1. WMDs--much maligned because not found, but very probably real 2. Saddam's support of terrorism in general, and yes, al Qaeda in particular--contrary to the wrong statement one of you made about Saddam's Iraq NOT being a safe haven 3. Oil--libs may disparage that, but it is a significant part of the economy of America and the world 4. What I referred to as mainly a collateral benefit, but probably in actuality, one of the lesser reasons or goals--setting up a shining example of freedom and representative government--that is more than just do-gooderism, it benefits America to the extent that it leads to a more stable and peaceful world.

I would put our goals/motives in this order::
1) Remove Hussein because he and his heirs represented longterm threat to stability in oil region.
2) Establish democracy example in an Arab country according to neocon idealism.
3) Establish presence to threaten and influence Syria & Iran
4) Act before Hussein could establish WMD, inspections weren't working
5) Get rid of regime that might provide aid to terrorists in future
6) Finish-off Gulf War I, which left Iraq in crippled state of sanctions and strife, and required constant military vigilance by U.S.

[hoosier]

As for the original reasons or goals of invading Iraq, I see those as mostly IRRELEVANT now--old news. But if pinned down to provide my idea of what those reasons were, I would say, in this approximate order, the reasons were: 1. WMDs--much maligned because not found, but very probably real 2. Saddam's support of terrorism in general, and yes, al Qaeda in particular--contrary to the wrong statement one of you made about Saddam's Iraq NOT being a safe haven 3. Oil--libs may disparage that, but it is a significant part of the economy of America and the world 4. What I referred to as mainly a collateral benefit, but probably in actuality, one of the lesser reasons or goals--setting up a shining example of freedom and representative government--that is more than just do-gooderism, it benefits America to the extent that it leads to a more stable and peaceful world.

I would put our goals/motives in this order::
1) Remove Hussein because he and his heirs represented longterm threat to stability in oil region.
2) Establish democracy example in an Arab country according to neocon idealism.
3) Establish presence to threaten and influence Syria & Iran
4) Act before Hussein could establish WMD, inspections weren't working
5) Get rid of regime that might provide aid to terrorists in future
6) Finish-off Gulf War I, which left Iraq in crippled state of sanctions and strife, and required constant military vigilance by U.S.

I think there's another misunderstanding waiting to happen here: Tex is stating his own personal take on US priorities (what he thinks they SHOULD be), whereas Harlan is stating what he thinks they ARE/WERE. Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong (I don't really know, for instance, whether Tex would ever be prepared to acknowledge that there's a difference between "is" and "ought" when it comes to Republican foreign policy).

[texaspackerbacker]

No, Hoosier, not accurate at all. What I stated, probably as with what Harlan stated, is my concept of what the original intent was/is.

If you want to get into "ought to", I think we "ought to" have asserted American dominance with military force on the entire middle east--exploiting the oil resources for ourselves, just like anti-American leftists falsely accuse us of doing now. I further think we "ought to" use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course, which would result in a magnificent new age of freedom, representative government, and capitalist prosperity for the whole world--with the specter of nuclear annihilation to any non-compliers. Of course, that won't happen because there are too many leftist obstructors who would be abhorred by "inflicting" of the American Way on the poor unfortunate world.

[oregonpackfan]

If you want to get into "ought to", I think we "ought to" have asserted American dominance with military force on the entire middle east--exploiting the oil resources for ourselves, just like anti-American leftists falsely accuse us of doing now. I further think we "ought to" use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course, which would result in a magnificent new age of freedom, representative government, and capitalist prosperity for the whole world--with the specter of nuclear annihilation to any non-compliers. Of course, that won't happen because there are too many leftist obstructors who would be abhorred by "inflicting" of the American Way on the poor unfortunate world.

This mindset is what disturbs me as an American. It is the viewpoint that we have the right to dictate to the rest of the world they should act the way we want them to because we are the strongest nation of the world.

If our founding fathers of the American Constitution were alive today, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, etc. would they state that is the vision they had for the United States of America?

[texaspackerbacker]

Why should it disturb you?

We have the "right" which comes from being right; We have the "right" that comes from being the primary force "good" in a good versus evil world; And (I'm sure this will be a magnet for the haters of the left) we have the "right" that comes from having the military might to make it happen.

Do you deny that the world would be a better place in that "Pax Americana" scenario?

Unfortunately, there are too many liberals in position of influence. I guess we will just have to wait for Christ's Millenial Kingdom for such to happen (if the other didn't attract the haters, this for sure will).

As for the founding fathers, I think you can extrapolate from their attitude toward the Indians how they would view and treat the rabble of the world.

[hoosier]

No, Hoosier, not accurate at all. What I stated, probably as with what Harlan stated, is my concept of what the original intent was/is.

If you want to get into "ought to", I think we "ought to" have asserted American dominance with military force on the entire middle east--exploiting the oil resources for ourselves, just like anti-American leftists falsely accuse us of doing now. I further think we "ought to" use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course, which would result in a magnificent new age of freedom, representative government, and capitalist prosperity for the whole world--with the specter of nuclear annihilation to any non-compliers. Of course, that won't happen because there are too many leftist obstructors who would be abhorred by "inflicting" of the American Way on the poor unfortunate world.

I stand corrected. :roll:

[the_idle_threat]

Tex, I ain't a lib, but when you say the U.S. should "use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course," you lose me completely.

The idea of benevolent imtimidation is laughable. What happens when you rule by intimidation? Resistance. You become the hated overlord, even if you think your intentions are to be a "force of good" in the world. Nobody likes to be coerced. Also, it's importnt to note that we're not the only country with nukes. Nuclear intimidation would inevitably lead to nuclear war, and then everyone loses.

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't say it was gonna happen--somebody brought up "ought to". This is merely the ideal that would bring the peace and harmony that liberals either really do envision or disingenuously claim to envision for the world.

The ONLY way that will ever happen is an all-powerful force for good making it happen--which takes us out of the realm of politics and into the realm of religion.

At least we haven't had any haters/idiots come along claiming America isn't the force for good or that we aren't in a good versus evil world--not yet, anyway.

[Gunakor]

Why should it disturb you?

We have the "right" which comes from being right; We have the "right" that comes from being the primary force "good" in a good versus evil world; And (I'm sure this will be a magnet for the haters of the left) we have the "right" that comes from having the military might to make it happen.

Do you deny that the world would be a better place in that "Pax Americana" scenario?

Unfortunately, there are too many liberals in position of influence. I guess we will just have to wait for Christ's Millenial Kingdom for such to happen (if the other didn't attract the haters, this for sure will).

As for the founding fathers, I think you can extrapolate from their attitude toward the Indians how they would view and treat the rabble of the world.


Sieg Heil Tex! Let's go after every country that doesn't practice American values and force them to act and think as we do!

Think about this for a minute Tex. Democracy ain't for everybody. Sure, it would be far better for YOU if every middle eastern country were Americanized. Will it be better for them? Or will putting power in the hands of a people who have never had to make decisions or govern themselves going to lead to inevitable civil war anyhow? There's no guarantee that even if we THINK we have succeeded in setting up a stable democracy there that it will last even a month after we leave. There's no proof that a Democratic government is even what's best for them, or if they are even capable of such a government. There is only proof that a Democratic Iraq is what is best for America.

No matter how powerful our military is, no matter how noble our purpose is, we do not have the right to manipulate other countries into doing what we'd like them to do.



I'm glad this has finally boiled down to the real problem in Iraq right now - Oil. The world is dependent on middle eastern oil, so the fear is that if Iraq were to fall into the hands of our enemies then the global economy will crash. I actually agree to a point about that. But I don't put to much stock into that because America should be more worried about developing other forms of energy - that can be produced and REproduced in America so we can sustain ourselves without foreign fuel - than they are in protecting the worlds largest oil supply.

We have enough of our own corked oil in America to sustain ourselves for some time, long enough anyway for a cleaner and more readily available fuel source to be developed. Our government does not want to uncork that oil because they are "saving it for the future"... "in case of emergency." Oil should not be our future anyway, and I'd hope that the emergency we are dealing with now (gas spiking to over $4 per gallon over the summer, increasing the cost of travel AND shipping, leading to increases in the costs of practically everything, causing the cost of living to increase, reducing consumer spending and very negatively affecting our local economy) would qualify for the emergency they are supposedly saving that oil for. We should not be so dependent on middle eastern oil, especially considering the state of the middle east at the moment.

[texaspackerbacker]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

[hoosier]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

Not to jump in--Gunakor can defend himself--but what's truly self-defeating is the belief that you can emancipate others. Think about it. Logically it just doesn't make any sense: "We should emancipate the Iraqis." What kind of emancipation would that be? While the "Let the Iraqis emancipate themselves" argument might just be an excuse for isolationism (which I'm not advocating as a viable alternative), in the end it is more consistent than the "enlightened imperialism" argument, which is really just a self-serving justification for power politics.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you want to get into "ought to", I think we "ought to" have asserted American dominance with military force on the entire middle east--exploiting the oil resources for ourselves, just like anti-American leftists falsely accuse us of doing now. I further think we "ought to" use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course, which would result in a magnificent new age of freedom, representative government, and capitalist prosperity for the whole world--with the specter of nuclear annihilation to any non-compliers. Of course, that won't happen because there are too many leftist obstructors who would be abhorred by "inflicting" of the American Way on the poor unfortunate world.

This mindset is what disturbs me as an American. It is the viewpoint that we have the right to dictate to the rest of the world they should act the way we want them to because we are the strongest nation of the world.

If our founding fathers of the American Constitution were alive today, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, etc. would they state that is the vision they had for the United States of America?

Who knows...tex would have them in guatanomo!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex, I ain't a lib, but when you say the U.S. should "use nuclear intimidation to force the world to comply--in a benevolent way, of course," you lose me completely.

The idea of benevolent imtimidation is laughable. What happens when you rule by intimidation? Resistance. You become the hated overlord, even if you think your intentions are to be a "force of good" in the world. Nobody likes to be coerced. Also, it's importnt to note that we're not the only country with nukes. Nuclear intimidation would inevitably lead to nuclear war, and then everyone loses.

While i think we fall on different sides of the political spectrum, you are completely right on this one.

I am puzzled how Tex or anyone else can blindly ignore basic interpersonal relations. People don't like to be intimidated/coerced..no matter if it is good for them or not. Countries are no different.

I ask Tex or anybody else...reverse the situation...put us in the non-dominant position..how would you feel if Tanzania did this to us?

[Scott Campbell]

I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and generally tow the Republican party line. But Iraq is not going well. We can't be willingly entering wars unless we are sure we are going to win, and win quick. Think Grenada. This thing has been a half assed operation from the moment they sold us the W.M.D. bill of goods.

War as a foreign policy tactic should be the very last resort.

[hoosier]

I ask Tex or anybody else...reverse the situation...

I think you just lost him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and generally tow the Republican party line. But Iraq is not going well. We can't be willingly entering wars

Attitudes about war really don't cut across conservative/liberal lines. There are plenty of isolationist, very conservative people who never saw an intervention they could agree with. Pat Buchanon, Bob Novak come to mind. They are old-school conservatives. Paleocons.

There are interventionist conservatives, neocons. There are a lot of liberal hawks who believe in intervening for humanitarian or other reasons.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm pretty fiscally conservative, and generally tow the Republican party line. But Iraq is not going well. We can't be willingly entering wars unless we are sure we are going to win, and win quick. Think Grenada. This thing has been a half assed operation from the moment they sold us the W.M.D. bill of goods.

War as a foreign policy tactic should be the very last resort.

Though i'm fairly liberal socially, i'm not so when it comes to foreign policy.

While i thought the WMDs was bogus....we still coulda done well. The whole thing went wrong when Rummy ignored MILITARY MEN who advised a higher troop level from the beginning.

If we are going to do it, let's not do it half assed. We shoulda come in..stomped them, laid down the law..no looting, etc...locked the country down...as well as possible. You gotta expect a few "Wolverines."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Though i'm fairly liberal

Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

old Dylan song

[Gunakor]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?


We are better suited to democracy because we have been practicing it for over 200 years. They might not be because they've been under a dictatorship their entire lives. I'm not saying that they don't deserve freedom. But democracy in Iraq will only work as long as the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds are working together peacefully. I personally don't think they can for very long, thus civil war will break out and the Iraqi democracy will dissolve. These are not civil people. That is what I mean when I say democracy might not be suitable for Iraq, and they might not want it. So I argue whether or not we should be over there making that country a democracy. We certainly don't have the right to just because we have the strongest army or because we have the most freedoms.

[texaspackerbacker]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

Not to jump in--Gunakor can defend himself--but what's truly self-defeating is the belief that you can emancipate others. Think about it. Logically it just doesn't make any sense: "We should emancipate the Iraqis." What kind of emancipation would that be? While the "Let the Iraqis emancipate themselves" argument might just be an excuse for isolationism (which I'm not advocating as a viable alternative), in the end it is more consistent than the "enlightened imperialism" argument, which is really just a self-serving justification for power politics.

I'm sure glad nobody told LaFayette and the French that in the 1770s when their navy cut off the British retreat at Yorktown, forcing the main British Army to surrender or be pushed into the sea.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There you go again, Gunakor.

It never ceases to amaze me how somebody can espouse liberal positions so routinely, yet then come out and state that a whole large segment of mankind just ain't suitable for democracy and self-rule.

If that's the case, how can you oppose, probably even ridicule the old "white man's burden" concept and the enlightened colonialism that went with it? If they are so pathetic--in your view--that somebody needs to rule them, then why not enlightened colonial powers like the British the first half of last century--or the Pax Americana scenario I talked about instead of tyrants of their own kind?

Doesn't it occur to you that your argument is self-defeating?

Not to jump in--Gunakor can defend himself--but what's truly self-defeating is the belief that you can emancipate others. Think about it. Logically it just doesn't make any sense: "We should emancipate the Iraqis." What kind of emancipation would that be? While the "Let the Iraqis emancipate themselves" argument might just be an excuse for isolationism (which I'm not advocating as a viable alternative), in the end it is more consistent than the "enlightened imperialism" argument, which is really just a self-serving justification for power politics.

I'm sure glad nobody told LaFayette and the French that in the 1770s when their navy cut off the British retreat at Yorktown, forcing the main British Army to surrender or be pushed into the sea.

Are you that dense? The french weren't leading us to our freedom.

Did i miss something or did the brave and valiant Iraqi freedom fighters ask for our assistance?

Oh, that is right..they did..they were called the kurds...and Bush ignored them.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

[Joemailman]

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Apr/16/br/hawaii80416058.html

Updated at 3:11 p.m., Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Ex-Schofield soldier denied health insurance post-Iraq

By GARANCE BURKE
Associated Press

FRESNO, Calif. — Forced to leave the combat zone after his two brothers died in the Iraq war, Army Spc. Jason Hubbard faced another battle once he returned home: The military cut off his family's healthcare, stopped his G.I. educational subsidies and wanted him to repay his sign-up bonus.

It wasn't until Hubbard, who had served in Iraq with his unit from Schofield Barracks, petitioned his local congressman that he was able to restore some of his benefits.

Now that congressman, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, plans to join three other lawmakers in introducing a bill that would ensure basic benefits to all soldiers who are discharged under an Army policy governing sole surviving siblings and children of soldiers killed in combat.

The rule is a holdover from World War II meant to protect the rights of service people who have lost a family member to war.

"I felt as if in some ways I was being punished for leaving even though it was under these difficult circumstances," Hubbard told The Associated Press. "The situation that happened to me is not a one-time thing. It's going to happen to other people, and to have a law in place is going to ease their tragedy in some way."

Hubbard, 33, and his youngest brother, Nathan, enlisted while they were still grieving for their brother, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Hubbard, who was 22 when he was killed in a 2004 bomb explosion in Ramadi.

At their request, the pair were assigned to the same unit, the Hawai'i-based 3rd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, and deployed to Iraq the next year.

In August, 21-year-old Cpl. Nathan Hubbard died when his Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Kirkuk. Jason Hubbard was part of the team assigned to remove his comrades' bodies from the wreckage.

Hubbard accompanied his little brother's body on a military aircraft to Kuwait, then on to California. He kept steady during his brother's burial at Clovis Cemetery, standing in dress uniform between his younger brothers' graves as hundreds sobbed in the heat.

But Hubbard broke his silence when he found his wife, pregnant with their second child, had been cut off from the transitional healthcare the family needed to ease back to civilian life after he was discharged in October.

"This is a man who asked for nothing and gave a lot," said Nunes, R-Calif., who represents Hubbard's hometown of Clovis, a city of 90,000 next to Fresno. "Jason is one person who obviously has suffered tremendously and has given the ultimate sacrifice. One person is too many to have this happen to."

Hubbard went to Nunes, who began advocating for the former soldier in December, after hearing the Army was demanding that he repay $6,000 from his enlistment bonus and was denying him up to $40,000 in educational benefits under the GI bill.

After speaking with Army Secretary Pete Geren, Nunes got the repayment waived, and a military health policy restored for Hubbard's wife.

But the policy mandated that she be treated at a nearby base, and doctors at the Lemoore Naval Air Station warned that the 45-mile trip could put her and the fetus in danger. Hubbard said doctors offered alternative treatment at a hospital five hours away.

Meantime, Hubbard and his 2-year-old son went without any coverage for a few months.

The Hubbard Act, scheduled to be introduced today, would for the first to detail the rights of sole survivors, and extend to them a number of benefits already offered to other soldiers honorably discharged from military service.

The bill — co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. — would waive payback of their enlistment bonuses, allow them to participate in G.I. educational programs, give them separation pay and access to transitional health care.

Meanwhile, Hubbard, his wife Linnea and his son Elijah, have permanent health coverage now that he is once again working as a Fresno County sheriff's deputy, the job he left in 2004 to serve in Iraq.

The Army will adopt to any changes in policy springing from the legislation, said Army spokesman Maj. Nathan Banks.

"Foremost the Army itself sympathizes with him for the loss of his brothers," Banks said. "We will do everything within our means to rectify this issue. He is still one of ours."

Hubbard's father, Jeff, said that resolving the family's bureaucratic difficulties would provide some comfort, but would not help lessen their pain.

"We're still very much deeply involved in a grieving process. We're pretty whacked," he said. "This doesn't relate back to the loss of our boys, it can't, but we would consider it a positive accomplishment."


I can only hope tha legislation being introduced will pass unanimously. Hard to believe our government would have treated any soldier this way, much less one in this situation.

[hoosier]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.


Who exactly is saying this? I haven't read or heard anyone critical of the war talking about what Iraqis are and arent' "cut out for." I think you're deliberately distorting the real point of the critique, which is that by definition you can't "give" someone their freedom (which is what the "white man's burden" view has always sanctimoniously claimed it could do). But of course, the invasion of Iraq, as you yourself have pointed out, was never really interested in freedom, unless you somehow think that freedom and power are the same thing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

[hoosier]

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Who's calling whom a tyrant?
http://www.impawards.com/1994/posters/madness_of_king_george.jpg
http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/king-george-madness.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Who's calling whom a tyrant?
http://www.impawards.com/1994/posters/madness_of_king_george.jpg
http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/king-george-madness.jpg

fukin great movie.

Wierd thing..was just reading a tongue in cheek article on Bush..how he is suffering, like lincoln, from depression.

[hoosier]

fukin great movie.

Wierd thing..was just reading a tongue in cheek article on Bush..how he is suffering, like lincoln, from depression.

Yes.

Someone's trying to humanize Dubya, huh? J/k.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.


Who exactly is saying this? I haven't read or heard anyone critical of the war talking about what Iraqis are and arent' "cut out for." I think you're deliberately distorting the real point of the critique, which is that by definition you can't "give" someone their freedom (which is what the "white man's burden" view has always sanctimoniously claimed it could do). But of course, the invasion of Iraq, as you yourself have pointed out, was never really interested in freedom, unless you somehow think that freedom and power are the same thing.

Leftists in general, I can't keep track of which of you say what and when, have said repeatedly that America can't/shouldn't inflict our way, our values, etc. on foreigners in general, Iraqis in particular. I recall somebody specifically mentioning democracy as one of the things they weren't ready to handle.

There were a lot of purple ink-stained fingers over there that say otherwise. I can remember a few decades ago when liberals (before liberal became a dirty word) used to have the attitude that people are people. What is natural and feasible and enjoyable for one group is pretty much the same the world over. In fact, that premise has proven true pretty much whenever it has been tried--EVEN in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you dig deep enough for the stonewalled stories of human success. Everybody who has been over there knows this and doesn't even think of it as controversial. It's only the American leftists that you forum leftists idolize who think there is something wrong with ENABLING freedom and representative government.

You try to sound all pious and claim we can't GIVE them these things. Well, there is a huge difference between GIVING and ENABLING.

And lest some disingenuous leftist or some normal pro-American person trots out the old line that this sort of thing isn't worth 4,000 American lives, that would be true if it were purely a matter of do-gooderism. However, having free happy educated prosperous people in foreign countries is GOOD FOR AMERICA in the sense that it makes our own wonderful position and situation more secure.

I'm as much for peace and harmony as anybody; I just realize that it takes strength and occasional use of that strength i.e. war to achieve that peace and harmony. Before resorting to that, however, we should always give the American Way--freedom, representative government, and free enterprise capitalism a chance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

Tyrone, if you scroll back up to what I said which you attempted to "contradict by paraphrasing", you would see that I stated that France's ENABLING of American success in the Revolutionary War was more similar to the Cold War era--one superpower trying to enable the nemesis of the other superpower--U.S. v. Soviet Union/Br. v. Fr.

As for those treaties you mentioned--as you yourself said, they were in '78, AFTER THE FACT in the American Revolution.

Bush rebuffing the Kurds in the 90s? I'll give you that one. Yet who among the Iraqis are the most loyal and pro-American of all?

As for poor old King George, I said he was "a bit of a tyrant", but not exactly like Saddam Hussein. You would really dispute that? King George, from what I've heard, was deranged in an inbred, possibly syphilitic way, and even though he had Parliament, he pretty much dominated Parliament and got his way, particularly in treatment of colonials.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

Tyrone, if you scroll back up to what I said which you attempted to "contradict by paraphrasing", you would see that I stated that France's ENABLING of American success in the Revolutionary War was more similar to the Cold War era--one superpower trying to enable the nemesis of the other superpower--U.S. v. Soviet Union/Br. v. Fr.

As for those treaties you mentioned--as you yourself said, they were in '78, AFTER THE FACT in the American Revolution.

Bush rebuffing the Kurds in the 90s? I'll give you that one. Yet who among the Iraqis are the most loyal and pro-American of all?

As for poor old King George, I said he was "a bit of a tyrant", but not exactly like Saddam Hussein. You would really dispute that? King George, from what I've heard, was deranged in an inbred, possibly syphilitic way, and even though he had Parliament, he pretty much dominated Parliament and got his way, particularly in treatment of colonials.

Tex, unfortunately you seem to forget where this started. Gunakor posited that the Iraqis must fight for their own freedom.

Which then you stated you were glad that nobody said that to lafayette.

Thus, you are comparing our assistance now in helping the country establish itself..to france helping the U.S.

The point, which you can't seem to comprehend is that the U.S. wrote and Declaration of Independence and had it's own army and was fighting against the GB. None of which the Iraqi's even came close to doing.

Treaties: I guess you are purposefully obtuse...I said secretly and then openly. The french were assisting us from early on. What do you think Franklin was doing there. Upon his arrival frenchmen left to join up with us...either outta hatred for GB or because we embodied the spirit of enlightment. Lafayette and L'enfant weren't frenchmen fighting as rogue soldiers or as part of a french unit..they enlisted in OUR army.

You obviously don't know your history as Beaumarchais was founded Roderigue Hortalez and Co. supported by the French and Spanish crowns, whose purpose was to supply the American rebels with weapons, munitions, clothes, and provisions. THIS STARTED IN 76.

Do you think the french aid of american piracy of british frigates was by accident. do you think those french military strategists granted "vacation" that wound up in the u.s. was by accident? Geez...wake the fuck up.

Regardless of formally entering in 78...we were still fighting prior. The iraqi's were not doing so. So, to even make any sort of analogy of us being anywhere in the same vicinity as the French were to the colonialists is asinine.

Tyrant:Nope. I've given you a defintion..and he doesn't pass the tyrant test. Bad leader, maybe. Tyrant no. And, if bullying the parliament counts as being a tyrant..then i guess Bush counts as well..since he pretty much has gotten most everything he wanted.

Bush 1: well, that is a start. Admitting when you are wrong is freeing, isn't it. :wink:

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, Tyrone. I'm going to do something I very very seldom do: surrender--albeit a conditional surrender.

You are right about my flawed analogy of the French in the American Revolution, although I stand by the fact that the French fleet preventing the British to escape by sea at Yorktown, as they had done other times, was the biggest single factor in enabling us to win our freedom from the British.

I should have compared what we are doing in Iraq to our installing and propping up new regimes in Japan and West Germany against Communism after we defeated them in the military portion of World War II.

Your knowledge of history is impressive. You just need to work on the conclusions you come to in the here and now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

OK, Tyrone. I'm going to do something I very very seldom do: surrender--albeit a conditional surrender.

You are right about my flawed analogy of the French in the American Revolution, although I stand by the fact that the French fleet preventing the British to escape by sea at Yorktown, as they had done other times, was the biggest single factor in enabling us to win our freedom from the British.

I should have compared what we are doing in Iraq to our installing and propping up new regimes in Japan and West Germany against Communism after we defeated them in the military portion of World War II.

Your knowledge of history is impressive. You just need to work on the conclusions you come to in the here and now.

well, that is about as close to a surrender as you can get. I know your foolish pride won't allow to actually admit totally defeat...so, like a good victor, i'll allow you to surrender with honor.

French: Nobody was disputing their significance in the revolutionary war.

Your new analogy is just as flawed. While we are indeed propping up a new regime...Iraq did not attack us, we never faced a civil war, terrorist threats, or citizens that were rabidly against us and willing to fight...furthermore, we didn't limp into WW2 like we did vs. Iraq.

Conclusions: Just as you were wrong about your analogy, perhaps you should take the opportunity to revisit your conclusions. You might find them flawed as well.

[texaspackerbacker]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

Attacked kuwait...so, this war is a continuation of what happened under Bush One. LOL

Civil war: Sectarian violence..tomatoe tomahto.

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

Limped in: Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason we have had to add additonal troops, stop loss, continue to use NATIONAL GUARD..for more than one call up..as if National guard should be over there...is that we came in with an inadequate force. You can't tell me that we need to listen to the military and yet deny that our military wanted more troops initially.

[hoosier]

By DAVID BARSTOW, New York Times
Published: April 20, 2008
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
(....)


Nothing new under the sun as far as the Bush administration's dealings with the coverage of the war. But this does expose the wide extent to which the administration's tentacles have penetrated the "mainstream media," and thus it provides an interesting counterpoint to the Right's obsession with the idea that the "mainstream media" is biased toward the Left. Of course, many on the Right will dismiss this point of view out of hand (or never even hear of it in the first place) because of its point of origin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

It seems like the Sunnis have become much more accepting of the U.S. presence since they were cleansed from Baghdad; they see they aren't gonna fight way to power, and they actually are very much in harmony with U.S. goals of unified state that shares oil wealth.

Sadr is the champion of U.S. Out of Iraq. His political popularity spread from Baghdad to southern Iraq in past 2 years largely because of this stance. So Shia appear increasingly ready for us to go.

But situation is fluid & murky. Lots of stories lately of resentment of militias & Sadr for reigniting violence. Surely the success of Patraeus's strategy in last 9 months has bought considerable good will.

I don't know what Iraqis would think about U.S. withdrawal within 2 years. I'll guess more are for it than against, but they are scared about it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

Attacked kuwait...so, this war is a continuation of what happened under Bush One. LOL

Civil war: Sectarian violence..tomatoe tomahto.

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

Limped in: Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason we have had to add additonal troops, stop loss, continue to use NATIONAL GUARD..for more than one call up..as if National guard should be over there...is that we came in with an inadequate force. You can't tell me that we need to listen to the military and yet deny that our military wanted more troops initially.

OK, as for your points--not necessarily in order:

Against us? As Harlan said, the Sunnis for the most part are appreciative and want us there at least until stabilty is achieved; The Shi'ite were propelled from the depths of depravity to democratic power consistent with their near majority status; And the Kurds love us. That about covers the whole population. How could you possibly disagree with this?

Sectarian violence or civil war? Picture Northern Ireland--some nastiness and small scale killing, etc. That's sectarian violence. Now picture Rwanda--the Hutus versus the Tutsis. I heard on PBS earlier this evening there were 900,000 killed in 100 days in late '93 and early '94. THAT'S a civil war. In Iraq, you have a government composed of and supported by the leaders of all three major factions--no organized resistance that has any chance of regime change--just messing things up and killing people. Why? Because al Qaeda made it their business to stir up the different sects. But the LEADERS OF THOSE SECTS have had the good sense NOT to buy into the idea of civil war--despite the fervent hope of BOTH al Qaeda and their faithful allies, the American Left.

Limped in? Refer to my paragraph in the post above.

Kuwait? The subject of the discussion was your assertion that Iraq was NOT similar to World War II. You would actually claim that the invasion of Iraq was NOT a continuation of the Gulf War--and Saddam's refusal to abide by the generous terms of surrender he was given the first time around? Maybe I should have compared Iraq to World War I AND World War II.

Your willingness to carry on an intelligent and civil discussion of the issues is appreciated, Tyrone--especially in light of other lefties not doing so.

[Partial]

So this new guy at work is from Kuwait, and I guess during the Iraq ivasion of Kuwait, a bomb went off on his street and his father and him had to take off running down the street. He said he ran over a slew of dead bodies that his dad told him were sleeping in the street.

That has to be horrifying for a small child.

[Freak Out]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

[Deputy Nutz]

So this new guy at work is from Kuwait, and I guess during the Iraq ivasion of Kuwait, a bomb went off on his street and his father and him had to take off running down the street. He said he ran over a slew of dead bodies that his dad told him were sleeping in the street.

That has to be horrifying for a small child.

Thats a sad story.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.

[Freak Out]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.

The German navy sank so many merchant marine vessels its staggering....and there was really nothing covert about our support for the British before a declaration of war was made.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.

The German navy sank so many merchant marine vessels its staggering....and there was really nothing covert about our support for the British before a declaration of war was made.

I guess that all depends on the "facts."

We definitely were involved in covert ops long before it was even established that there were covert acts. Have you read "A man called intrepid?"

[Freak Out]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.

The German navy sank so many merchant marine vessels its staggering....and there was really nothing covert about our support for the British before a declaration of war was made.

I guess that all depends on the "facts."

We definitely were involved in covert ops long before it was even established that there were covert acts. Have you read "A man called intrepid?"

Of course we were involved in covert ops....my post was relating to the statement someone made (Tex?) about Germany not attacking us directly...which is ludicrous. How is sinking tonnes and tonnes of US merchant shipping not attacking us directly? That was long before any formal declaration of war was made.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.

The German navy sank so many merchant marine vessels its staggering....and there was really nothing covert about our support for the British before a declaration of war was made.

I guess that all depends on the "facts."

We definitely were involved in covert ops long before it was even established that there were covert acts. Have you read "A man called intrepid?"

Of course we were involved in covert ops....my post was relating to the statement someone made (Tex?) about Germany not attacking us directly...which is ludicrous. How is sinking tonnes and tonnes of US merchant shipping not attacking us directly? That was long before any formal declaration of war was made.

Ludricous?

You found this statement as the one that is ludicrous. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

Mind you, I just jumped into the end of this thread, but we entered WWII because JAPAN attacked us, not Germany. Pearl Harbor and all that. Japan and Germany were allies.

[Zool]

Much before that Zig is the discussion. Plus IIRC there were plans to go into the war anyways, but the Pearl Harbor attack just ramped those plans up 6-8 months.

[texaspackerbacker]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

[Zool]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

[MJZiggy]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

I told you I jumped in at the end, and what makes you think I'm leftist?

[texaspackerbacker]

I hadn't even seen your post, Ziggy. I think it went up while I was typing.

Besides, I was talking about those whining about war costs being too much in comparison to benefits--and I haven't heard/read you expressing any of that bad stuff.

[hoosier]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

[Partial]

I told you I jumped in at the end, and what makes you think I'm leftist?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: are you serious?

[texaspackerbacker]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

Can I take that as your plaintiff wail of surrender? If so, just for yourself, or for the whole leftist faction?

[hoosier]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

Can I take that as your plaintiff wail of surrender? If so, just for yourself, or for the whole leftist faction?

Hardly. :lol: It was appreciation for the comic relief provided by Zool.

[Zool]

Ohh no, everyone that disagrees with Tex on anything is a leftist commie scumbag. Whether or not you identify yourself that way, you are one. Just ask him.

BTW Tex ol' boy, not everyone defines themselves by some sort of outdated 2 party political system. Some of us have actual brains that function. We can see something on each side thats good and bad. It doesnt always have to be us against them you elitist douche bag. Listen carefully now, you're NOT better than anyone else despite what you think. Your shit stinks just the same as mine, well maybe less. I had mexican lastnight and I love me some refried beans. I know this wont make a dent and you'll come back with something totally off the wall that will make me laugh, but I felt like typing it. Its the exact same thing I've typed many times over to deebs like you. You'd think I would get tired of typing it, but no. I'm a masochist.

[The Leaper]

I think it went up while I was typing.

Tex, you really need to stop getting off on typing posts.

[texaspackerbacker]

Uh .......... you leave me speechless.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

Can I take that as your plaintiff wail of surrender? If so, just for yourself, or for the whole leftist faction?

Can we take your malaprops as a sign of conservative education or just your's?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ohh no, everyone that disagrees with Tex on anything is a leftist commie scumbag. Whether or not you identify yourself that way, you are one. Just ask him.

BTW Tex ol' boy, not everyone defines themselves by some sort of outdated 2 party political system. Some of us have actual brains that function. We can see something on each side thats good and bad. It doesnt always have to be us against them you elitist douche bag. Listen carefully now, you're NOT better than anyone else despite what you think. Your shit stinks just the same as mine, well maybe less. I had mexican lastnight and I love me some refried beans. I know this wont make a dent and you'll come back with something totally off the wall that will make me laugh, but I felt like typing it. Its the exact same thing I've typed many times over to deebs like you. You'd think I would get tired of typing it, but no. I'm a masochist.

You're a fucking leftist, comrade!

[texaspackerbacker]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

Can I take that as your plaintiff wail of surrender? If so, just for yourself, or for the whole leftist faction?

Can we take your malaprops as a sign of conservative education or just your's?

It isn't "malaprops"; It's "malapropism". If you even know what a malapropism is, please cite one in something I wrote.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There you guys go AGAIN--diverting from the present and seizing on a basically casual comment I made about Germany not attacking us directly. Yeah, sure, the U-Boats sinking merchant ships stuff was true, as well as the covert activities. I think it's a safe assumption we had a few covert things going against Saddam too, and for sure, Saddam was paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers and probably a whole lot more.

The point is the SIMILARITY.

That whole discussion, though, is insignificant compared to the original point of this thread: A Benefit versus Cost analysis of the war in Iraq.

And in that arena, the ONLY ways you come out AGAINST the war is if you totally discount the value of American lives save by preventing terrorist hits against America or if you are in total DENIAL of the portion of contribution to preventing those acts of terror that comes from having al Qaeda choose messing up Iraq over hitting us at home.

Leftists in this forum and outside of it would probably take those ludicrous positions, but they would be WRONG.

God DAMN it must be a burden to be you. I applaud you for putting up with it.

LOL

Can I take that as your plaintiff wail of surrender? If so, just for yourself, or for the whole leftist faction?

Can we take your malaprops as a sign of conservative education or just your's?

It isn't "malaprops"; It's "malapropism". If you even know what a malapropism is, please cite one in something I wrote.

Please, don't come unarmed to a fight. It would be correct to say malaprops. Check out dictionary.com

Next, point out...which one? Let's start off with "plaintiff" wail.

A plaintiff is a person who brings suit in a court.

The word you meant to use was plaintive...expressing sorrow or melancholy; mournful

Come back anytime. But, i would suggest you actually learn your mother tongue before challenging me.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, you got me there. I was just taking a line from some old cowboy song about coyotes howling--or is it coyotes hauling? Naw, that's the illegals thread.

Kick me in the ass for trying to use floury language ....... you know, floury language--the way white people talk.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

OK, you got me there. I was just taking a line from some old cowboy song about coyotes howling--or is it coyotes hauling? Naw, that's the illegals thread.

Kick me in the ass for trying to use floury language ....... you know, floury language--the way white people talk.

Wow. Another malaprop.

The word is flowery.

Best to keep it to simple words. Like your arguments, things get a bit muddled when you trying getting complicated.

[texaspackerbacker]

Duh. That one was on purpose. FLOURY--the way white people talk--flour being white.

It's pretty sad when I have to explain the joke to you.

Did you get the howling/hauling one?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Duh. That one was on purpose. FLOURY--the way white people talk--flour being white.

It's pretty sad when I have to explain the joke to you.

Did you get the howling/hauling one?

When you make as many errors as you...it is hard discern.

[texaspackerbacker]

Could you, by chance, point out another?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Could you, by chance, point out another?

Sure, i'd be happy to go through all your posts. :roll:

[oregonpackfan]

This is a recent article dealing with the financial impact of the Iraq War--much of the reconstruction money financed by American taxpayers is being wasted.

Investigators: Millions in Iraq contracts never finished
By HOPE YEN, AP
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Millions of dollars of lucrative Iraq reconstruction contracts were never finished because of excessive delays, poor performance or other factors, including failed projects that are being falsely described by the U.S. government as complete, federal investigators say.

The audit released Sunday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, provides the latest snapshot of an uneven reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. It also comes as several lawmakers have said they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction.

The special IG's review of 47,321 reconstruction projects worth billions of dollars found that at least 855 contracts were terminated by U.S. officials before their completion, primarily because of unforeseen factors such as violence and excessive costs. About 112 of those agreements were ended specifically because of the contractors' actual or anticipated poor performance.

In addition, the audit said many reconstruction projects were being described as complete or otherwise successful when they were not. In one case, the U.S. Agency for International Development contracted with Bechtel Corp. in 2004 to construct a $50 million children's hospital in Basra, only to "essentially terminate" the project in 2006 because of monthslong delays.

But rather than terminate the project, U.S. officials modified the contract to change the scope of the work. As a result, a U.S. database of Iraq reconstruction contracts shows the project as complete "when in fact the hospital was only 35 percent complete when work was stopped," said investigators in describing the practice of "descoping" as frequent.

"Descoping is an appropriate process but does mask problem projects to the extent they occur," the audit states.

Responding, USAID in the report said it disagreed that its descoping of the hospital project was "effectively a contract termination," but that it had changed the work because of escalating costs and security problems. Mark Tokola, the director of the Iraq transition assistance office, also responded that the database the IG's office reviewed of Iraq reconstruction contracts was incomplete.

Bowen's office said its review was preliminary and that it planned follow-up reviews to investigate descoping more closely. Investigators said they were also looking into whether contractors whose projects were terminated by the U.S. government due to inadequate performance might have been awarded new contracts later despite their poor records.

Investigators said the database they reviewed lacked full data on projects such as those done by USAID, the State Department, and those completed before 2006. But they said the figures cited in the report offered a baseline in terms of unfinished Iraq reconstruction contracts.

"Adding contract terminations from these (other) sources would certainly raise the number of terminated projects," the report states.

The audit comes amid renewed focus in recent months on potential abuse in contracting government-wide, such as Iraq reconstruction. Last year, congressional investigators said as much as $10 billion — or one in six dollars — charged by U.S. contractors for Iraq reconstruction were questionable or unsupported, and warned that significantly more taxpayer money was at risk.

In recent weeks, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has been working with Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, on legislation that would restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants; require that Baghdad pay for fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement.

Danielle Brian, executive director of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said the latest audit report points to significant U.S. taxpayer waste in current reconstruction efforts.

"The report paints a depressing picture of money being poured into failed Iraq reconstruction projects — contractors are killed, projects are blown up just before being completed, or the contractor just stops doing the work," she said.

___

On the Net:

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction:

http://www.sigir.mil/Default.aspx