Bush's Historical Position

[Batman Jr.]

All that "stuff" would resume as soon as Saddam got the oportunity. The cost of maintaining sanctions, for the US, the Iraqi populace, and the region as a whole, were very high. They were not going to last indefinitely, and a number of countries were actively engaged in trying to lift the sanctions. Once that happened, there would be absolutely zero assurance that that "stuff" was indeed in the past. This was a long-term problem that NOBODY in the anti-war croud has ever had an answer to. They just keep saying the sanctions and inspections worked, but there was no grounds to maintain either indefinitely.

I've never heard someone defend the war by virtue of its cost-effectiveness before. It's been an awfully expensive venture for that I think.

Lot's of things can happen in the future. There are no grounds to say that the Hussein regime would be indefinite either. You need better, more urgent reasons to get yourself into a war.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You tell me why it's not morally inferior to sit on the sidelines while others suffer, without trying to do something about it. Because nobody in the antiwar croud has put forward any realistic proposal for another way to handle Saddam other than the unacceptable status quo.

If you're going to put it that way, it's naturally going to sound bad. But putting it another way, it's very easy to see how morally reprehensible it is to force some kids who are mostly just trying to pay their way through college to put their lives at risk for anything less than absolute certitude that what they're doing is of truly chief concern to them. It is not altruistic to stand by idle, but neither is it to force others to put themselves straight in the middle of the vagaries of war for others. When you begin to do that, you begin to treat our troops as disposable pawns for the agenda of the government.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Not at all. Rather, the costs for going to war, in terms of human lives, misery, stability for the region, etc. were smaller than the long-term costs that Saddam's continued existence would extract from his own people and from his neighbors. I'm fully aware of the cost of invading, and I'm also fully aware of the cost of doing nothing. And the latter is higher.

So far, death rates have remained pretty high. Electricity and water supply is still pretty bad too. It's very difficult what to make of the situation right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never heard someone defend the war by virtue of its cost-effectiveness before. It's been an awfully expensive venture for that I think.

And such ideas haven't ever occured to you on your own? You obviously haven't been thinking about these issues too hard if this is somehow a surprising concept to you. Yes, it is an expensive venture. The status quo was also very expensive. And the expense comes in more than just dollars.

Lot's of things can happen in the future. There are no grounds to say that the Hussein regime would be indefinite either.

"Ignore it and maybe it will go away." Are you actually advocating that as a course of action? Sorry, but you've got to do better than that.

If you're going to put it that way, it's naturally going to sound bad.

Gee, ya think? Could it possibly be because, you know, it IS bad to ignore the suffering of others? Nah... the anti-war croud is caring by definition. Can't be that.

It is not altruistic to stand by idle, but neither is it to force others to put themselves straight in the middle of the vagaries of war for others. When you begin to do that, you begin to treat our troops as disposable pawns for the agenda of the government.

Look, that's the way the army works. It's an all-volunteer military. NOBODY is forced to join. But if you choose to join, then hell yes, you can be "forced" to go to war. That's what it MEANS to join the military. Militaries don't work if individual soldiers get top pick and choose which combat assignments they like. By signing up, you are explicitly agreeing to allow someone else to send you into combat.

So far, death rates have remained pretty high.

Whose death rate are you talking about? Coalition troops? No, that isn't very high. By any historical standards, the coalition casualty rate has been pretty low. Iraqi casualties? Well if you want to count them, you had better be willing to line those numbers up against what was happening under Saddam. And those numbers are pretty horrific. The invasion set the stage for something better than that, and while the price was indeed high, the benefits to Iraq, and the whole region, will be huge and lasting. Or how about Islamofascists and their Ba'athist allies? Yeah, they haven't faced death rates like that since Afghanistan. And all the better.

Electricity and water supply is still pretty bad too. It's very difficult what to make of the situation right now.

Electricity and water have been bad for well over a decade, but for the first time in that long, there are actually prospects of those things getting better. You know, real prospects, real money, not just "maybe Saddam will go away" wishful thinking. But since you apparently aren't aware that good things are happening in Iraq as well, let me suggest you peruse a little of the under-reported bright side of things:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006290
Or, if you'd like to hear from Iraqis talking about what is being achieved in their country, I recommend:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

 

[Batman Jr.]

And such ideas haven't ever occured to you on your own? You obviously haven't been thinking about these issues too hard if this is somehow a surprising concept to you. Yes, it is an expensive venture. The status quo was also very expensive. And the expense comes in more than just dollars.

Alright. Could you show me a cost comparison between the two scenarios?

Originally posted by Ziggurat
"Ignore it and maybe it will go away." Are you actually advocating that as a course of action? Sorry, but you've got to do better than that.

When did I say we should "ignore it"? I was explaining that you want us to go to war for what-ifs and that I disagree with that.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Gee, ya think? Could it possibly be because, you know, it IS bad to ignore the suffering of others? Nah... the anti-war croud is caring by definition. Can't be that.

Again, I never advocated ignoring the suffering of others.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Look, that's the way the army works. It's an all-volunteer military. NOBODY is forced to join. But if you choose to join, then hell yes, you can be "forced" to go to war. That's what it MEANS to join the military. Militaries don't work if individual soldiers get top pick and choose which combat assignments they like. By signing up, you are explicitly agreeing to allow someone else to send you into combat.

Just because they have a legal obligation doesn't mean their services should be abused. Legalization won't automatically make things right, otherwise every despotic country would have to be considered morally righteous because the despot adheres to his own deranged rule of law.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Whose death rate are you talking about? Coalition troops? No, that isn't very high. By any historical standards, the coalition casualty rate has been pretty low. Iraqi casualties? Well if you want to count them, you had better be willing to line those numbers up against what was happening under Saddam. And those numbers are pretty horrific. The invasion set the stage for something better than that, and while the price was indeed high, the benefits to Iraq, and the whole region, will be huge and lasting. Or how about Islamofascists and their Ba'athist allies? Yeah, they haven't faced death rates like that since Afghanistan. And all the better.

By "historical standards," lots of things are low. If you're going to compare 9/11 to WWII, 9/11 is going to sound like a joke, but it's not.

The Lancet study estimated the civilian death rate to have risen since Hussein.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Electricity and water have been bad for well over a decade, but for the first time in that long, there are actually prospects of those things getting better. You know, real prospects, real money, not just "maybe Saddam will go away" wishful thinking. But since you apparently aren't aware that good things are happening in Iraq as well, let me suggest you peruse a little of the under-reported bright side of things:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006290
Or, if you'd like to hear from Iraqis talking about what is being achieved in their country, I recommend:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Well, we'll see.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alright. Could you show me a cost comparison between the two scenarios?

I might come back to this later, right now I've got to make this short.

By "historical standards," lots of things are low. If you're going to compare 9/11 to WWII, 9/11 is going to sound like a joke, but it's not.

Umm... no. 9/11 was very much the same scale as Pearl Harbor in terms of deaths (around 2400 for Pearl Harbor, around 3000 for 9/11). As an opening salvo in a longer war, it's not a joke at all, even by historical standards.

The Lancet study estimated the civilian death rate to have risen since Hussein.

The Lancet tried to estimate total death rates. That includes military deaths, terrorist deaths, and civilian deaths. They made NO claim to be able to separate out any of these different categories, and their data does not make any such distinctions. You want to quote the Lancet study? Fine, go ahead. But at least know what it is they're actually saying.