Iraq War Costs hit home

[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.

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.

[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.