Iraq War Costs hit home

[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.