Iraq: Worth the Price?

GStan said:
You were the one that made the implied claim that five years was long enough. I just did not know what you were basing that on. My own personal opinion, (unsupported by any relevant data), is that it could take as long as a generation before the Iraq government could truly be stable enough to be independently functional. We have destroyed their established dictatorship and assisted them in creating something new, yet it is something new that is wholly run by Iraqi people who have no experience with government other than Saddam's government. Perhaps when the Iraqi children of today, who will hopefully only experience a lifetime of democracy, mature and take over the reigns 20 or 30 years from now, then Iraq will truly be able to stand on its own. IMHO. Will it really take that long? Will we be there for the duration to see that through? I can't answer those.
Click to expand...

These have been my thoughts exactly regarding success and stability in Iraq.
 
WildCat said:
There were multiple reasons give for the war. Have you ever read the AUMF for Iraq?

Your claim that only one reason was given prior to the war is false, as is your claim that the other reasons were only given after the war began and no WMD's were found.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your politics!
Click to expand...

Threat inflation and rationale inflation go hand in hand. You were misled. Easily misled. And now you mislead. The central reason we went to war, the reason Bush claimed we needed to depose Saddam Hussein, was because the Iraqi dictator posed a threat to our national security. And yes, the administration shamefully began ramping up its case on the anniversary of Sept. 11th. While talk of a suddenly "urgent" and "gathering" threat was laughable at the time, along with smoking guns in the "form of a mushroom cloud," those otherwise risible assertions were no longer funny after we saw the full extent of the administration's scandalously dishonest manipulation of the intelligence. Dishonesty (and incompetence) so overwhelming that even the normally docile and easily misled public began to wake up. Yes, you are and remain an exception, probably proudly representing the bottom 1%.

Anyway, as for Hitchens -- a leading member of the .0001%-I-can't-believe-I'm-this-****ing-crazy club -- I like how he begins criticizing a cliche in economics while ending on one. I would also like to know what he bases his pessimistic assumptions on regarding a bomb-free Iraq. Hitchens has long argued that what happened in Iraq would have happened eventually, and the U.S. merely induced labor, the birth of a democracy that would spread far and wide. So the same type of looting would have taken place? Iraqi infrastructure would be completely decimated?

Innocent as they are on the above points, they become positively childlike as they go on. Think how many candy-canes and vacations I could have if it were not for the space program, or the cost of carrier-groups or special forces or -- I don't know -- Black Hawk helicopters. (If you think I am being unkind or frivolous, see if you can detect the thread of reasoning that connects Iraq expenditures with the crisis in the mortgage system.) There are days when I think that the money raised by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might have been better spent on the alleviation of poverty, but I can still tell an apple from an orange and am not hopelessly stuck on the zero-sum fixation.
Click to expand...

This is just silly. Zero-sum fixation? Hardly. The opportunity costs are quite real. I wonder how much is too much for Hitchens. How many Iraqi civilians would have to die? How many would have to be displaced? How much blood and money is too much.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
There were multiple reasons give for the war. Have you ever read the AUMF for Iraq?

Your claim that only one reason was given prior to the war is false, as is your claim that the other reasons were only given after the war began and no WMD's were found.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your politics!
Click to expand...


I totally agree. People shouldn't forget that WMD was a complete wanna-be-threat ... lie - manufactured for the American voters and the rest of the world. And while we're at it: Don't forget to include the current candidates plans concerning this incredibly expensive adventure in the ME while watching the Dollar and Oil-prices.

And for a reminder and a good laugh - the main points of the AUMF:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
...


The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; [*LMAO*] and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


source
Click to expand...


But even if it's incredible that people still wonder about if Iraq was/is a good thing to do or not, while the current economic situation speaks for itself in light of GI-Joe's national security concerns, at least it had the purpose to open some patriotic eyes for what's really going on behind the curtains.

And with some luck, the US MSMedia will tell you about it some day. ;)
 
Puppycow said:
Christopher Hitchens says yes
Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz say no

BTW, I'm in the middle of reading Hitch's book God is not Great, and I think I agree with almost everything he writes therein. On the Iraq war however, I have been convinced for a long time that it has not been worth the price. Maybe because I agree with him so much in his book, this article propted me to redo my calculations, which I fully admit cannot begin to hope to really know the true costs of everything. I still think that it probably was not worth it, but maybe I'm a little less certain than I used to be. I do think that Hitchens makes as good an argument as can be made for his proposition. Nonetheless, knowing what I know now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be for it if transported back to 2002 or early 2003. Then again, maybe in another 5 or 10 years things will look still different. God only knows the true answer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't much matter anymore who was for or against Iraq, or whether it was a good idea or not, or what we speculate about how things would have gone if not invading Iraq, again.

It gets tiresome (not personal in this comment) reading and rereading all those who seem to thing the clock can be turned back, if only we would just call it quits by 2009, and then it will be all hunky dory again and everyone will love the USA, including Muslims, who only hate us because of the obscene Muslim dictatorships we deposed.

Excuse me while I gag.
 
Just came in...

BREAKING: White House Not Releasing Damaging Pentagon Report
By: Nicole Belle @ 4:19 PM - PDT

ABC News: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online...

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/pentagon-report.html
Click to expand...


Read the report’s executive summary HERE.
 
Last edited:
It hasn't been that hard to remove two and a half million barrels of oil a day from the market just as oil consumption around the world begins to really skyrocket, effectively guaranteeing more than one hundred dollar a barrel oil.

So the answer is an easy YES.
 
President Bush said:
It hasn't been that hard to remove two and a half million barrels of oil a day from the market just as oil consumption around the world begins to really skyrocket, effectively guaranteeing more than one hundred dollar a barrel oil.

So the answer is an easy YES.
Click to expand...


I guess you meant: "Yes, for those Oil-producing countries and those people who make deals with them" - to be more accurate, right?
 
It gets tiresome (not personal in this comment) reading and rereading all those who seem to thing the clock can be turned back, if only we would just call it quits by 2009, and then it will be all hunky dory again and everyone will love the USA, including Muslims, who only hate us because of the obscene Muslim dictatorships we deposed.
Click to expand...

Radical muslims hated the US long before the Bush administration, and they will continue regardless of our actions. If we decide to use hugs instead of guns, they will still kill us every chance they get. (Note: I said radical muslims.)
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Radical muslims hated the US long before the Bush administration, and they will continue regardless of our actions. If we decide to use hugs instead of guns, they will still kill us every chance they get. (Note: I said radical muslims.)
Click to expand...


You mean that putting a trillon bucks into development programs in the Middle East wouldn't ease the diplomatic relations AND the hatred down there?

If so, stick to Embargos and military interventions to get things done. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
President Bush said:
Yup, this is funny only until someone gets hurt.
Click to expand...

You may not have heard of Saudi Arabias situation, but their current infaltion rates are running at 7%, the UAE's at 9.5%. There is a good chance that they will start to shift towards Petro-Euro since the Dollar is seriously hurting them:

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/03/12/more-talk-of-abandoning-dollar-pegs/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Once the Dollar is being dropped by the Oil-producing countries in the ME, all this blabbering about Iraq is irrelevant anyway. And once people wake up for the economic situation that "Dr. Nut" is reffering to, there will be a blowback to all the Administrations efforts in the Middle East as well.

You will see. The chances are high that the outcome of Iraq will be the biggest strategical failure in US-History.
 
Last edited:
Steve H said:
Agreed. I still think the WMD thing was a red herring and this Bush wanted to settle the score for the alleged Iraqi assassination attempt on his father back in 1992 or 1993.
Click to expand...

That's a conspiracy theory right out of the liberal playbook. Can't you guys come up with something new?

Was the war worth it? Based on what has happened up until this point the answer is a resounding no.
Click to expand...

You want to ask the Iraqi people who Saddam tortured and murdered if it was worth it?

Despite the positive spin coming from the administration, Iraq is fractured, the killings continue daily, and the vacuum created by the toppling of the Hussein regime has emboldened Iran. Then there's the post 'military-phase' fiasco where the administration apparently forgot to plan beyond the defeat of Saddam's military and his toppling.
Click to expand...

A dictator was taken out and Iraq has a chance at freedom. Does that matter?

Think about it - it's been about 5 years now since we invaded and what passes for the Iraqi government still can't function, let alone establish order on it's own. I feel for the friends and families of those killed, whether US military personnel, those of our allies, or the Iraqi noncombatants that would likely still be alive or at the very least not maimed if we had an administration that 'used it's head' post-9/11.
Click to expand...

What about all the Iraqi's that were killed before Saddam was taken out? How many would he have killed if he was still in power?
 
New Ager said:
What about all the Iraqi's that were killed before Saddam was taken out? How many would he have killed if he was still in power?
Click to expand...


Is it fair to say that all those dead Iraqis would have loved democracy? I used to think so.

Now I am not so sure. How many of those dead Iraqis do you think would be planting roadside bombs now if they hadn't been killed by Hussein?

Makes you think, doesn't it?
 
Oliver said:
You mean that putting a trillon bucks into development programs in the Middle East wouldn't ease the diplomatic relations AND the hatred down there?

If so, stick to Embargos and military interventions to get things done. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

:confused: You think the Middle East needs development programs, from us; and you think that isn't what many of the worst basket cases aren't getting?
 
President Bush said:
Is it fair to say that all those dead Iraqis would have loved democracy? I used to think so.
Click to expand...

But now you don't think so? Could that be because they then, and now, didn't really have a clue what it meant?

Now I am not so sure. How many of those dead Iraqis do you think would be planting roadside bombs now if they hadn't been killed by Hussein?

Makes you think, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder how you think, for sure.
 
Elind said:
Makes me wonder how you think, for sure.
Click to expand...


In maintaining a scientific attitude I try to acknowlege a process world of continual change, along with the functioning of my nervous system in its experience of that world.

Due to the odd tone of your quote I am beginning to suspect that I might - at the moment - be at home sleeping. Though in need of a sip of water, perhaps, or a bowel movement.
 
Puppycow said:
Well, I guess from the perspective of humanity as a whole.
Click to expand...
You use an empty abstraction as criterion for success, value accrued, or value lost in a limited war?

Sorry, that is not a suitable metric.

Care to try again?
 
Elind said:
:confused: You think the Middle East needs development programs, from us; and you think that isn't what many of the worst basket cases aren't getting?
Click to expand...


Well, put it this way: "Spreading Democracy" and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure is a developement program as well, isn't it?

The difference is that I honestly believe the current Administration could've archived more against "teh evildoer threat" and Terrorism in general by not forcing the ones they don't like - which, in my humble opinion, is a major source of Anti-Americanism in contrast to the usual blabbering from US-Politicians that "we're teh good ones". Turned out that this isn't true - so there is no reason for me and others to blindly trust those ones anymore.

Of course, Bush is a Cowboy - so why not just let those 3.500 Soldiers die - just for the fun of it in place of wasting the trillion Bucks in a more wise, economic and diplomatic way. That would be pretty boring and sooooo liberal, wouldn't it? :D
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
The difference is that I honestly believe the current Administration could've archived more against "teh evildoer threat" and Terrorism in general by not forcing the ones they don't like - which, in my humble opinion, is a major source of Anti-Americanism in contrast to the usual blabbering from US-Politicians that "we're teh good ones". Turned out that this isn't true - so there is no reason for me and others to blindly trust those ones anymore.
Click to expand...

One can always argue for a different history, without changing anything or improving the present or the future. Well, perhaps the distant future. However we would never have spent what is being spent in a different present, and even GWB didn't expect to do so, which is not to say so in his defense in any way.

However I have no reason to believe that those who hate the USA would now love it, including those who in all their adult lives have never been proud of it.

Actually, for better or worse as the nations of this planet go, who have the will to do anything, we are actually "the good ones". That many will never agree doesn't change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom