[PB2K]

Cost the USA 300.000.000.000 US$
Iraq has a population of 30.000.000, with a measly GDP

What if the USA had given every citizen 10.000 US$ ?
I think there wouldn't be any insurgents disagreeing with that

[OldManMac]

It isn't about money; it's about spreading democracy.

[PB2K]

you need to be rich to afford a democracy

[tie]

You are missing a zero there. I think a better question is whether we'd have gone to war if the alternative was to give every US citizen $10,000.

[nonhuman]

Never would have happened. The very people who most vigorously supported war with Iraq are the same people who would have called such a scheme the redistribution of wealth and drawn parallels with Marxism and Communism.

They'd have been right, of course, but to their surprise the Democrats and liberals would have supported them in opposing this idea, but only because they'd find some reason to believe that it's unfair to give equally to everyone.

[Benton]

The lessons learned from Vietnam were so soon forgotten.

[Hugi]

Lesson learned?
From Iraq?
The US?

LOL, you're one optimistic guy.

[Chongo]

Drop flyers, then carpet bomb.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It isn't about money; it's about spreading democracy.

[PaperNotes]

Iraq is improving at a tremendous rate and is on track to being the financial hub of the middle east and a major conduit between the West and the East. In 20 years all the liberal white-guilt critics will eat their words and will be made an example of. History will judge that they prefer white people not to be ruled over by a Hitler but it is ok for brown people to be dictated to by a Saddam or Bin Ladin.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

you need to be rich to afford a democracy

No you don't. India has been the biggest democracy in the world since 1947 and was bankrupt in the mid 90s. It was only when the protectionist-socialist Left was voted out in the 90s and they freed their economy that they experienced economic boom. The newly elected government is made up of some of the same faces from the last Gandhi cartel and they are not changing the liberal economy ethics introduced by the BJP at the behest of the Clinton Administration, World Bank and IMF. They learned a lesson.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Iraq is improving at a tremendous rate and is on track to being the financial hub of the middle east and a major conduit between the West and the East. In 20 years all the liberal white-guilt critics will eat their words and will be made an example of.

You're good; you should do stand-up comedy.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're good; you should do stand-up comedy.

I will. You sit in the audience. I'll bore you to death so that I don't have to breath the same air as you again.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Iraq is improving at a tremendous rate and is on track to being the financial hub of the middle east and a major conduit between the West and the East.

How can they become a financial hub when all their time is spent figuring out how to kill each other?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

How can they become a financial hub when all their time is spent figuring out how to kill each other?

They do NOT spend all their time doing that. It's a myth put out by liberals who simply want to attack Bush while forgetting the bigger picture. All they are interested in is in power struggles for the White House and if they can do that by being bleak about Iraq then that's the game they play.

The violence In Iraq is mostly confined to two towns and a couple of neighbourhoods of Baghdad. That's no more violence than Northern Ireland ten years ago.

The rest of Iraq is progressing at a very fast rate. There are $200,000 apartments in Irbil, which was a small town five years ago, and a very pro-Western outlook. The biggest shopping center in the middle east is being built in Irbil too. Yesterday the mayor of Irbil said in the news that EACH city of Iraq could be a Dubai. More, there is also a brand new city being built near where the Garden of Eden is believed to have been (for the record I don't believe in all that ancient hogwash but it's part of their folklore so I mention it). It's called Paradise City.

Where the Civil War that liberals were raging on about for the last three years?

[ApeInTheShell]

Paradise City: where the grass is green and the girls are pretty

[k2director]

PaperNotes is right. Iraq is moving forward, nearly every statistic says so.

Our troop casualties this month are, so far, lower than ANY OTHER MONTH since the war started. And that's no random fluke--troop casualties have been declining for a year. Civilian attacks/deaths are also way down from their high points. The Iraqi army is beginning to carry out successful operations on its own. The government is also showing backbone in taking on independent militias, and finding support from both Shias and Sunnis. And Al Queda has been reduced to a minor, pathetic sideshow.

Of course, it's become fashionable to be against the war, to be so cynical about motives and military/government competence, etc. But the fact remains: Iraq *is* moving forward, and if America keeps up its resolve, Iraq has a very good chance of becoming the first sustainable democracy in the Muslim Middle East, with bonus oil revenue for rebuilding the country and investing in the future. And if Iraq is thriving under democracy, then it will also begin to influence many of the other authoritarian regimes--Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.--that make the Middle East such a dysfunctional and violent mess.

It takes time. It takes $$. It takes lives. What else is new? And what was the alternative? To work through the UN? LOL! No, the alternative was to sit by and watch the Middle East continue to spiral out of control, exporting greater and greater violence that threatened to take us all down.

What I find interesting is watching all the opponents of the war try to reconcile the fact that Iraq *is* stabilizing, and has a real chance at becoming a functional, thriving country, and no longer an outcast of the international community (as it was under Saddam). If Iraq becomes a success story (like, say, a South Korea, where we had to fight a very unpopular and bloody war against the North Koreans and then the Chinese), it makes all the naysayers look like idiots. At some point, the naysayers have to decide if they're going to root for a democratic Iraq to fail (simply to save face), or if they're going to put aside their opposition to the war and acknowledge that Iraq has emerged a much better country for it. That's a tough decision a lot of you are going to have to make...

[tie]

$15 billion has been embezzled in Iraq.

It takes time. It takes $$. It takes lives. What else is new? And what was the alternative? To work through the UN? LOL! No, the alternative was to sit by and watch the Middle East continue to spiral out of control, exporting greater and greater violence that threatened to take us all down.

The Iraq action has only precipitated the Middle East spinning out of control. We have much less control over the region now than before the war. We have neither leverage on our allies (Saudi Arabia) nor on our enemies (Iran). As a result of losing leverage on our allies, the war has actually set democracy back in the region.

In the long term, you might be right. Or not, right now we can't tell. Iraq is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, tied for #150 on Transparency International's list, which doesn't bode well at all. There are other huge problems that make your rosy predictions unlikely. However, the situation will presumably improve considerably once we get a competent commander in chief (from either party) who can start to clean up Bush's mess.

In any case, it is clear that the war was not worth the cost ($2 - 3 trillion).

[k2director]

Originally Posted by tie 

As a result of losing leverage on our allies, the war has actually set democracy back in the region.

Funny, before the war, there were no democracies in the Muslim Middle East, and now there is one (albeit it a new and struggling one). That seems like a setback to you? No, that's called a step forward. Before there were none, now there's one. Do the math.

Regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria are hardly going to change themselves and they certainly weren't going to change pre-Iraq war, just because we asked them nicely. If Iraq collapses, then it will hurt our ability to introduce democratic values, and therefore stability and better world citizenship, to the Middle East. But if the country gets on its feet, then it will indeed become an agent for positive change that no amount of diplomacy or policy could ever match. A healthy Iraq will certainly put pressure on all of its neighbors to reform for the better. An autocratic regime will have a hard time explaining to its citizens why they can't have a vote, or true political parties, or freedom of speech and the press, etc., when Iraq has all of that.

Originally Posted by tie 

The Iraq action has only precipitated the Middle East spinning out of control.

How so? Instead, it's shown that there are real consequences for bad behavior, beyond yet another utterly and completely useless U.N. Resolution. And now, the Middle East seems far less likely to export violence over to our soil and our civilian targets, like it did on 9/11, and many other occasions leading up to 9/11.

Originally Posted by tie 

In any case, it is clear that the war was not worth the cost ($2 - 3 trillion).

How is that clear? Of course it's worth it.

In 1993, some Muslim wackos tried to bring down the World Trade Center. Less than 10 years later, yet another group of Muslim wackos succeeded in bringing down the WTC, and also managed an attack on the heart of our government (the Pentagon, and that 4th plane would have probably destroyed either the White House or our Congress).

So what would the next 10 years bring, in a world with open borders, where rogue nations like North Korea and Iran or breakaway Soviet satellites can peddle nuclear material to the highest bidder, or mass produce chemical weapons? What might the next series of attacks look like in 5 or 10 years? You'd have to be stupid if you can't imagine some pretty nightmarish scenarios for our country, not to mention the rest of the world. Really, how hard would it be to smuggle a nuclear bomb into New York harbor or Washington DC, and detonate it? What would it do to our country if New York and/or Washington DC were destroyed in an anonymous terrorist attack like that? What would the cost be then, in dollars and in our civil liberties?

And yet, that kind of future is exactly what we could look forward to if the Middle East was allowed to simply continue on its dysfunctional, pre 9/11 course. To prevent this kind of violence from growing greater and greater, the Middle East needs to reform, and creating a stable, democratic Iraq is the best way to start that process. It may be expensive (though hardly unbearable), but the alternative would be far more costly, and potentially fatal for us.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by k2director 

And yet, that kind of future is exactly what we could look forward to if the Middle East was allowed to simply continue on its dysfunctional, pre 9/11 course. To prevent this kind of violence from growing greater and greater, the Middle East needs to reform, and creating a stable, democratic Iraq is the best way to start that process. It may be expensive (though hardly unbearable), but the alternative would be far more costly, and potentially fatal for us.

Worse, the notion that we could simply pull our troops out now and not be back within two years to a more fortified enemy is just ludicrous. Too many do not consider the implications of another 12 years of failed resolutions and economic sanctions. I thought these folks were into changing the course?

You nailed it. We plant democracy right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East where others will witness it and eventually fight for it in greater numbers. When you consider the massive population of Iraq, the number of those we're fighting is actually quite low and decreasing. Granted, they may be waiting for the elections and a cut and run policy, but I'm not sure this is the endorsement our current list of hopefuls is looking for.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Funny, before the war, there were no democracies in the Muslim Middle East, and now there is one (albeit it a new and struggling one). That seems like a setback to you? No, that's called a step forward. Before there were none, now there's one. Do the math.

Sure there were. But then we deposed them and installed dictators who we thought would align themselves more with our interests.

Of course this is all the more reason that we should be putting time, effort, and money into restoring democracy to the Middle East.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by k2director 

And yet, that kind of future is exactly what we could look forward to if the Middle East was allowed to simply continue on its dysfunctional, pre 9/11 course. To prevent this kind of violence from growing greater and greater, the Middle East needs to reform, and creating a stable, democratic Iraq is the best way to start that process. It may be expensive (though hardly unbearable), but the alternative would be far more costly, and potentially fatal for us.

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.

[k2director]

Middle-East dysfunction was responsible for 9/11, and Iraq was one of many poster-children for that dysfunction.

To say that responsibility for 9/11 begins and ends with Bin Laden is being willfully stupid, or living in denial (both of which are common these days). Bin Laden brought down the WTC in 2001, but as I said earlier, another group of unrelated muslim wackos tried to do the same thing less than 10 years earlier. And leading up to 2001, plenty of other increasingly violent terrorist acts had been perpetrated by muslim wackos who were not acting under Bin Laden's control.

The problem is much bigger than Bin Laden. If you kill him and then call it a day, he'll simply be replaced by another violent wacko, just as he replaced the violent wackos who tried to destroy the WTC in 1993.

The problem is really the long list of authoritarian/totalitarian regimes that make up the Middle East. Basically, these Middle East regimes stay in power by keeping their own people down, but redirecting the natural anger and violence that such oppression generates towards outside targets--namely, Israel and then the U.S. by association. They redirect that anger and violence through their own very public rhetoric and posturing (ala Saddam...remember that chimp offering cash bonuses to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, or him launching SCUDs at Israel when he was being swept from Kuwait?), or by looking the other way as increasingly radical elements form within their own country (ala Saudi Arabia's madrases, Pakistan's extremist tribal region, etc.)

Of course, authoritarian governments are never good at building real value in their society, and that's why they suffer from poverty, high unemployment, and humiliation/hardship thanks to a bunch of counterproductive and failed wars (three failed wars against Israel, Iraq vs. Iran, Iraq vs Kuwait, Iraq vs. the U.N. during Desert Storm, etc.).

But their message to their people is always: "If you dare raise your voice or hand to me, you will end up in jail or dead. However, I see that you need to hate somebody for your shitty life, and so here, I give you Israel. I give you Israel's great enabler, the U.S. I'll even give you Western Civilization."

That's the kind of bullsh*t atmosphere that produced Bin Laden, and that will continue to produce an endless stream of Bin Ladens. And Iraq was one of many guilty parties responsible for creating and encouraging that atmosphere, which means that it *DID* share in the responsibility for 9/11.

That's why a reform-oriented war there is completely justified. And as I said before, not only is war there justified, but it's also a necessary step in moving that entire region out of its dysfunctional medieval state.

[olePigeon]

What you neglect to mention is that this war isn't a humanitarian effort, it's what nearly every war in history is about: securing financial interests.

What these people are going to lose a part of (and what many are fighting for [and I don't mean the terrorists]) is the assimilation of their culture into Western ideology; they're afraid of losing their heritage to McDonald's and Nike. Invading Iraq and setting it up to be the next China is not going to quell the terrorists in the world.

Ironically, just like the dictators, you seem to place the blame for the worlds' problems on everyone else without so much as a look at the U.S.' own foreign policy.

Also, please check your racist remarks at the door. You can make your point without referring to people as chimps/monkeys.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What you neglect to mention is that this war isn't a humanitarian effort, it's what nearly every war in history is about: securing financial interests.

The U.S. offers plenty of humanitarian aid to the world, but I never said that's what the Iraq war is about. READ MY LIPS: it's about increasing our own security in the world. Nothing wrong with that. But, as a bonus, Iraqis DO get a shot at a much brighter future than they ever had under The Chimp (p.s. if your politically correct sensibilities have been offended by that term, see below).

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What these people are going to lose a part of (and what many are fighting for [and I don't mean the terrorists]) is the assimilation of their culture into Western ideology; they're afraid of losing their heritage to McDonald's and Nike. Invading Iraq and setting it up to be the next China is not going to quell the terrorists in the world.

Are you crazy? Much of the violence against U.S. troops has been perpetrated by the Sunni minority who have simply lost their decades-long, exclusive grip on power. They're not fighting for their "culture" but for their formerly high place in the pecking order. More violence is chalked up to the fact that Sunnis and Shiites are struggling for power in Iraq, and that they hate each other, given 1) the Sunni's long-time oppression of the Shiites under The Chimp and 2) the Shiite's determination to lead the country, given that they're actually the numerical majority.
Please don't try to dress the violence up as a people's noble and heroic quest to preserve their culture, as if we're talking about the plains Indians or the Aztecs. By the way, under The Chimp, you'd easily find plenty of signs of Western culture in Iraq--certainly plenty of Nikes, western movies, American TV shows, etc.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Also, please check your racist remarks at the door. You can make your point without referring to people as chimps/monkeys.

Actually, it's your politically-correct-gone-insane attitude that needs the checking. Calling someone "a chimp" isn't racist, except in your deranged world where just about *anything* can and often is branded as "racist." Case in point: I didn't call "people" "chimps". I called Saddam a chimp. But you automatically expand that to be a racist insult to an entire group of people...maybe Arabs, or brown people, or who knows who else? It's hard to guess how your mind--diseased by political correctness--actually works.

The fact is, I don't use the term "chimp" very often. It's a special term that I save only for those individuals who embody the highest level of animal-like brutality and backwardness, and who I want to convey a high level of disgust for. I also sometimes use the term "ape"
...for instance, I've been known to call Joseph Stalin an ape. But there's a subtle difference between calling someone a "chimp" (Saddam) vs. an "ape" (Stalin). For me, Stalin embodied animal-like brutality and backwardness at the highest level, but he didn't have Saddam's pathetic delusions of grandeur, or clear need to create a massive cult of personality. Also, Saddam made a lot more bone-headed moves than Stalin did. So Saddam gets the slightly more clown-like "chimp" moniker, while I'm content leaving Stalin at the "ape" level.

Either way, I suppose you're now going to tell me that "ape" isn't racist, but "chimp" is.

[tie]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria are hardly going to change themselves and they certainly weren't going to change pre-Iraq war, just because we asked them nicely.

In fact regimes were changing for the better before the war, gradually, because we had influence to help make changes. Since the war, things gone moved backward. A war isn't necessarily the best way of making changes, and in this case it has turned out to be counterproductive.

How so? Instead, it's shown that there are real consequences for bad behavior, beyond yet another utterly and completely useless U.N. Resolution. And now, the Middle East seems far less likely to export violence over to our soil and our civilian targets, like it did on 9/11, and many other occasions leading up to 9/11.

The UN resolutions on Iraq were completely successful. Iraq had no WMDs. Why is this "completely useless"? I guess I could debate with you, but you seem to be on another planet. Currently, thanks to Iraq, we have lost the ability to coordinate our allies and Iran is emboldened because our military is tied up in two different conflicts that are endless and extremely costly. We have lost any military leverage on Iran because our military is overcommitted and can't make credible threats. And again, you are another planet, because you see this as "real consequences for bad behavior."

How is that clear? Of course it's worth it.

Of course it is worth it? The cost to every American is about $10,000. I would say that of course there are better things to spend our money on. Do you also buy $10,000 in lottery tickets?

Really, how hard would it be to smuggle a nuclear bomb into New York harbor or Washington DC, and detonate it? What would it do to our country if New York and/or Washington DC were destroyed in an anonymous terrorist attack like that? What would the cost be then, in dollars and in our civil liberties?

It is not much harder now than it was before.

And yet, that kind of future is exactly what we could look forward to if the Middle East was allowed to simply continue on its dysfunctional, pre 9/11 course. To prevent this kind of violence from growing greater and greater, the Middle East needs to reform, and creating a stable, democratic Iraq is the best way to start that process. It may be expensive (though hardly unbearable), but the alternative would be far more costly, and potentially fatal for us.

The Middle East still is dysfunctional and there is no question that the security situation is worse than before the war. Terrorist attacks have skyrocketed, and the new generation of trained terrorists isn't going to disappear even if we can stabilize Iraq. Alternative ways of promoting reform in the Middle East would be cheaper, more effective, and safer for us.

Let me be concrete. One alternative to a $3 trillion war would be to spend money on reducing our oil dependence. We could make every car in America a hybrid vehicle and double the mileage of our fleet, reducing oil consumption by 25%. $3 trillion is $12,000 for every registered passenger vehicle, and is $400,000 for every car sold in the US last year. Prices of oil would fall even further. This would spur reform because despotic regimes survive on their oil revenue. By propping up the price of oil---oil is now at record high prices---we give them the means to control their countries and suppress reform indefinitely.

There are many ways of promoting reform, and spending $3 trillion on a war that in the best case might turn Iraq into one of the most corrupt democracies on earth seems like maybe the least cost effective way of doing it.

But if you think it is "obviously" worth $10,000, feel free to write me a check for my share, too.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by tie 

In fact regimes were changing for the better before the war, gradually, because we had influence to help make changes. Since the war, things gone moved backward. A war isn't necessarily the best way of making changes, and in this case it has turned out to be counterproductive.



The UN resolutions on Iraq were completely successful. Iraq had no WMDs. Why is this "completely useless"? I guess I could debate with you, but you seem to be on another planet. Currently, thanks to Iraq, we have lost the ability to coordinate our allies and Iran is emboldened because our military is tied up in two different conflicts that are endless and extremely costly. We have lost any military leverage on Iran because our military is overcommitted and can't make credible threats. And again, you are another planet, because you see this as "real consequences for bad behavior."



Of course it is worth it? The cost to every American is about $10,000. I would say that of course there are better things to spend our money on. Do you also buy $10,000 in lottery tickets?



It is not much harder now than it was before.



The Middle East still is dysfunctional and there is no question that the security situation is worse than before the war. Terrorist attacks have skyrocketed, and the new generation of trained terrorists isn't going to disappear even if we can stabilize Iraq. Alternative ways of promoting reform in the Middle East would be cheaper, more effective, and safer for us.

Let me be concrete. One alternative to a $3 trillion war would be to spend money on reducing our oil dependence. We could make every car in America a hybrid vehicle and double the mileage of our fleet, reducing oil consumption by 25%. $3 trillion is $12,000 for every registered passenger vehicle, and is $400,000 for every car sold in the US last year. Prices of oil would fall even further. This would spur reform because despotic regimes survive on their oil revenue. By propping up the price of oil---oil is now at record high prices---we give them the means to control their countries and suppress reform indefinitely.

There are many ways of promoting reform, and spending $3 trillion on a war that in the best case might turn Iraq into one of the most corrupt democracies on earth seems like maybe the least cost effective way of doing it.

But if you think it is "obviously" worth $10,000, feel free to write me a check for my share, too.

There's so much silliness in your post but this comment, above all, summarizes your cluelessness:

Originally Posted by tie 

"The UN resolutions on Iraq were completely successful.. "

LOL. Now that's funny. More like they were so unsuccessful that they helped precipitate a war.

Runner up was the idea that reducing our oil dependency would somehow help the Middle East reform. You say:

Originally Posted by tie 

"This would spur reform because despotic regimes survive on their oil revenue. By propping up the price of oil---oil is now at record high prices---we give them the means to control their countries and suppress reform indefinitely. "

Clearly, you have no sense of history or even the state of the world today. Whether or not totalitarian regimes have more or less cash hardly affects their policies--that's why you find hard-core oppressive governments in some of the poorest sh*tholes of the world! Ever hear of Burma? North Korea? Pre-war Iraq? Congo? Pre-war Afghanistan? Rwanda? These are some of the poorest places in the world, and guess what, their poverty hasn't exactly caused their authoritarian regimes to loosen the reins, have they? Actually, I would argue that the poorer an authoritarian nation gets, the more oppressive it's likely to become, because the heads of state have to tighten the screws even further to stay in power.

Anyway, I not only don't have the time to rid you of your delusions, but I also don't have the professional training. What you need is a good dose of powerful medication to snap you out of your catatonic state, along with a highly trained psychologist to help reintroduce you, slowly but surely, to reality. Good luck....

[tie]

Originally Posted by k2director 

LOL. Now that's funny. More like they were so unsuccessful that they helped precipitate a war.

Trying to deflect my post with a joke doesn't really work. The sanctions were entirely successful from a security standpoint, and were roughly $3 trillion cheaper than the current approach. Ha ha?

[ironknee]

in 20 years? my god!

lesson to learn: George W Bush was trying to top his father George HW Bush with the iraq war.

"I can finish the job dad didn't finish."

it's pure example of oedipal complex.

how sad

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

Trying to deflect my post with a joke doesn't really work. The sanctions were entirely successful from a security standpoint, and were roughly $3 trillion cheaper than the current approach. Ha ha?

K2Director just doesn't get it - the UN approach was 100% successful.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

K2Director just doesn't get it - the UN approach was 100% successful.

The UN approach was a joke. Our 12 years of failed economic sanctions and endless resolutions against Saddam proved a dismal failure.

- systematic, widespread, and extremely grave human rights violations.
- No human rights monitoring in Iraq, no UN Rapporteur allowed to visit from 98 on?
- Expelled 6 humanitarian relief workers without explanation.
- rape and torture of women particularly, while video-taped for political opposition.
- executing prostitutes.
- Tongue amputations
- raping female relatives of prisoners in front of them.
- Poor performance on the soccer field for the beloved Iraqi pride? Imprisonment, beating, and humiliation.
- Destroying an entire town of Albu ‘Aysh.
-ethnic cleansing against ethnic Kurds and Turkmen from government-controlled areas. Non-Arab citizens are forced to change their documents and adopt Arab names, or they are deprived of their homes, property and food-ration cards, and expelled.
- Cuts in baby milk rations for political statement.
- Forced child labor
- jamming foreign news broadcasts.
- Saddam in support of International terrorism; sheltering terrorist groups such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which used terrorist violence against Iran and was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians in the 70s.
- Gave aid and shelter to the Palestinian Liberation Front, (PLF) known for attacks against Israel, headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
- circumventing the failed UN Oil for food scheme by diverting resources to his own military.
- Exported hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil every day against the UNSCR mandates and depriving his own people of billions of dollars in food and medicine.

The UN approach was neither successful, nor humanitarian. It is the template of failed International policy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by k2director 

READ MY LIPS: it's about increasing our own security in the world. Nothing wrong with that. But, as a bonus, Iraqis DO get a shot at a much brighter future than they ever had under The Chimp (p.s. if your politically correct sensibilities have been offended by that term, see below).

If this were about security, we'd be in Iran and North Korea, not Iraq.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Please don't try to dress the violence up as a people's noble and heroic quest to preserve their culture, as if we're talking about the plains Indians or the Aztecs. By the way, under The Chimp, you'd easily find plenty of signs of Western culture in Iraq--certainly plenty of Nikes, western movies, American TV shows, etc.

It's not my reasoning, it's theirs. Religion and heritage are used to fuel support for their combatants, it's half what religion was invented for. To control people. The U.S. only underlined their beliefs when it invaded. They've been warring for over 2000 years, I don't think it's going to stop even with the U.S. there. All that will happen is a new religious dictator will take the place of Saddam, then there will be another war in 20 years unless there's no financial reason to be there.

Also, you don't strike me as someone who'd give any thought to cultural tradition. The Native Americans would the first against the wall if you had your way.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Actually, it's your politically-correct-gone-insane attitude that needs the checking. Calling someone "a chimp" isn't racist, except in your deranged world where just about *anything* can and often is branded as "racist." Case in point: I didn't call "people" "chimps". I called Saddam a chimp. But you automatically expand that to be a racist insult to an entire group of people...maybe Arabs, or brown people, or who knows who else? It's hard to guess how your mind--diseased by political correctness--actually works.

I used the wrong word, I should have said persons instead of people. See below.

Originally Posted by k2director 

The fact is, I don't use the term "chimp" very often. It's a special term that I save only for those individuals who embody the highest level of animal-like brutality and backwardness, and who I want to convey a high level of disgust for.

Maybe you're not American? If so, there's been a huge misunderstanding and I apologize. Here in America, minorities (usually Mexicans and blacks) are often called "monkeys" or "chimps" in a racist manner, to insinuate they're intellectually inferior, culturally backwards, and should head back to a jungle someplace. It's a term that's been used in a derogatory and racist manner in the United States for the past 250 years. Whether or not intentional, you shouldn't use it. I don't get offended by racial slurs, but other people do; it also happens to be the rules of the forum.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Either way, I suppose you're now going to tell me that "ape" isn't racist, but "chimp" is.

It's very likely that if you walked up to black guy and called him an ape, monkey, or chimp, he/she would take it as a racial slur.

A chimpanzee is an ape, by the way.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The UN approach was a joke. Our 12 years of failed economic sanctions and endless resolutions against Saddam proved a dismal failure.

- systematic, widespread, and extremely grave human rights violations.
- No human rights monitoring in Iraq, no UN Rapporteur allowed to visit from 98 on?
- Expelled 6 humanitarian relief workers without explanation.
- rape and torture of women particularly, while video-taped for political opposition.
- executing prostitutes.
- Tongue amputations
- raping female relatives of prisoners in front of them.
- Poor performance on the soccer field for the beloved Iraqi pride? Imprisonment, beating, and humiliation.
- Destroying an entire town of Albu ‘Aysh.
-ethnic cleansing against ethnic Kurds and Turkmen from government-controlled areas. Non-Arab citizens are forced to change their documents and adopt Arab names, or they are deprived of their homes, property and food-ration cards, and expelled.
- Cuts in baby milk rations for political statement.
- Forced child labor
- jamming foreign news broadcasts.
- Saddam in support of International terrorism; sheltering terrorist groups such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which used terrorist violence against Iran and was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians in the 70s.
- Gave aid and shelter to the Palestinian Liberation Front, (PLF) known for attacks against Israel, headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
- circumventing the failed UN Oil for food scheme by diverting resources to his own military.
- Exported hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil every day against the UNSCR mandates and depriving his own people of billions of dollars in food and medicine.

The UN approach was neither successful, nor humanitarian. It is the template of failed International policy.

The UN sanctions were not humanitarian but they were successful. Your list of reasons why it was unsuccessful are sadly amusing in the context of the current war, which is even less humanitarian.

E.g., "- circumventing the failed UN Oil for food scheme by diverting resources to his own military." The oil-for-food scandal had Iraq generating $10 billion in illegal revenues. Just the other day we heard that $15 billion has been skimmed off our war spending. How can you argue that twelve years of sanctions were less successful when the current war has led to higher corruption in half the time, with the money now coming out of our tax dollars? Just about every item on your list can be similarly rebutted, that the situation is now worse.

And notably absent from your list is any mention of security issues, which were the primary reason for the sanctions! (Okay, I am horrified that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism against Iran, thanks for pointing that out.) The sanctions were meant to protect our security and they absolutely did. Where were the WMD? There were none. Iraq diverted aid resources to its military? Yes some, but not enough; the military remained woefully weak, unable to cause trouble in the region.

The only way you can argue that the sanctions were unsuccessful is if you take security off the table. Which is fine, but rather puzzling. After all, Iraq is not the worst humanitarian crisis out there, and it seems like this $3 trillion war has got to be by far the least effective humanitarian effort ever, on a per dollar basis.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

The UN sanctions were not humanitarian but they were successful.

They succeeded at absolutely none of their stated goals. I come to find out that there were actually 16 Resolutions and virtually every last one of them failed. There was every reason to believe in more resolutions' failed record.

Your list of reasons why it was unsuccessful are sadly amusing in the context of the current war, which is even less humanitarian.

I'd be curious to see your definition of "humanitarian".

E.g., "- circumventing the failed UN Oil for food scheme by diverting resources to his own military." The oil-for-food scandal had Iraq generating $10 billion in illegal revenues.

I forgot to mention that, thanks. I was talking about diverting resources to his own military instead of giving these provisions to their intended recipients. The hundreds of thousands of starving Iraqis.

Just the other day we heard that $15 billion has been skimmed off our war spending.

In light of your continued use of $3 trillion figure regarding the expense of this action I'd like to see a link on that $15 million we "just learned about". Do you have any info on this?

How can you argue that twelve years of sanctions were less successful when the current war has led to higher corruption in half the time, with the money now coming out of our tax dollars? Just about every item on your list can be similarly rebutted, that the situation is now worse.

A. Because there has been some success in our Iraq action.
B. Money had been coming out of our pockets during the entire 12 year span anyway in the form of the occasional gulf wars, lobbing of missiles into Iraq and "liberation" activity. There was absolutely no success in the Oil-for-food-program.

And notably absent from your list is any mention of security issues, which were the primary reason for the sanctions!

Having decreased tensions throughout Iraq isolating it to a few villages of hot-bed activity of terrorist strongholds, I didn't think it was necessary. There's plenty of information as to the movements of our military and its success in securing towns.

(Okay, I am horrified that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism against Iran, thanks for pointing that out.)

No problem. An effective point when trying to paint the middle east as some type of peace-laden utopia prior to our actions in Iraq.

The sanctions were meant to protect our security and they absolutely did.

They did no such thing.

Where were the WMD?

I don't know. Maybe ask some of the Iraqi generals who were calling for their use upon witnessing Shock and Awe and the toppling of the first Iraqi townships.

There were none.

Too bad Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, etc... knew it was more than simply WMDs, it was WMDs programs, well-documented and ready for sale per David Kay's testimony in 2003. That's why they (who were privy to the exact same intel as the President) were just as confident in the need to remove Saddam as the rest of the American public.

Iraq diverted aid resources to its military? Yes some, but not enough; the military remained woefully weak, unable to cause trouble in the region.

Thankfully, we didn't give them another 12 years to work it out.

The only way you can argue that the sanctions were unsuccessful is if you take security off the table. Which is fine, but rather puzzling. After all, Iraq is not the worst humanitarian crisis out there, and it seems like this $3 trillion war has got to be by far the least effective humanitarian effort ever, on a per dollar basis.

No. It will prove to be the biggest bang for its buck. Trust me. There was nothing to suggest "staying the course" of failed UN sanctions for another 12 years was going to do any good.

[hyteckit]

Let's use 9/11 to invade North Korea.

Does North Korea have a WMDs program?

Maybe they look too Asian and not like the guys who were responsible for 9/11.

[peeb]

Maybe they actually have WMDs. No fun fighting a war on equal terms...

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They succeeded at absolutely none of their stated goals. I come to find out that there were actually 16 Resolutions and virtually every last one of them failed. There was every reason to believe in more resolutions' failed record.

They stopped Iraq from developing WMD or from having a serious military. I don't know what the stated goals were, but on the one I care about---keeping the US safe and our oil supplies secure---they succeeded 100%. There's every reason to believe that they'd continue to succeed. The only goals which they failed at were humanitarian. This is too bad, but again remember that the war has been even worse---people dying at a higher rate---and has not been cost effective. You can save a lot of starving people with $3 trillion.

In light of your continued use of $3 trillion figure regarding the expense of this action I'd like to see a link on that $15 million we "just learned about". Do you have any info on this?

I'm afraid you are off by a factor of one thousand. I think this is why we have a hard time communicating. You feel like $15 billion is pocket change between friends, while I think of it as significant. (E.g., it is 2.5x the annual budget of the National Science Foundation.) Google Iraq audit if you want to catch up with the news.

B. Money had been coming out of our pockets during the entire 12 year span anyway in the form of the occasional gulf wars, lobbing of missiles into Iraq and "liberation" activity. There was absolutely no success in the Oil-for-food-program.

Fortunately, the $3 trillion figure includes these costs. It is the additional cost of the war versus maintaining the status quo. Again, maybe you are losing track of a few orders of magnitude?

No problem. An effective point when trying to paint the middle east as some type of peace-laden utopia prior to our actions in Iraq.

And who was doing that? My claim is that the US was safe and our oil supplies secure. A little trouble between Iraq and Iran actually makes the US safer, since they were both our enemies.

"Where were the WMD?" I don't know. Maybe ask some of the Iraqi generals who were calling for their use upon witnessing Shock and Awe and the toppling of the first Iraqi townships.

Ah, so you are one of those who continues to believe the aliens theory. I grant you that aliens may have spirited the WMD out of Iraq just as the war began, but this kind of conspiracy theory seems unlikely.

Too bad Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, etc... knew it was more than simply WMDs, it was WMDs programs, well-documented and ready for sale per David Kay's testimony in 2003. That's why they (who were privy to the exact same intel as the President) were just as confident in the need to remove Saddam as the rest of the American public.

Any evidence that they "were privy to the exact same intel as the President"? Now they would dispute it (obviously). But more importantly, during the crisis leading up to war, they publicly complained that they weren't getting the intel access they needed.

Trust me. There was nothing to suggest "staying the course" of failed UN sanctions for another 12 years was going to do any good.

I should just trust you on that? Once again, the sanctions were successful at defending the US and protecting our oil supplies. You can't dispute that.

[ironknee]

I'd recommend watching the excellent program on george hw bush on pbs

George H. W. Bush Video, Chapter 1 - Introduction | The Presidents | American Experience | PBS

He explains why they didn't take sadam out... "they don't ask us now."

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It's a myth put out by liberals who simply want to attack Bush while forgetting the bigger picture.

"Bush jr." and "the bigger picture" in one sentence!!! I bet this drunk facktard had the last big picture in the times where he successfully weaseled out of his duty in Vietnam. Contrary to others.
Oh and "Liberel's"? Those are really teh horror, I mean compared to right wingers, fascists, religious hypocrites and dogmatic bigots.


PB.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

They stopped Iraq from developing WMD or from having a serious military.

I don't know how you can say this. The documents for WMDs blueprints among information on trying to attain the necessary material were both found in Iraq. Again, David Kay reported on this in great detail. As for Iraq's military; there's everything to suggest our Resolutions and deals with Iraq were only bolstering Iraq's military while withholding provisions from the Iraqi people.

I don't know what the stated goals were, but on the one I care about---keeping the US safe and our oil supplies secure---they succeeded 100%.

Iraq was what... 7th on the list of those who provided us with oil? There was nothing in the UN resolutions about securing US oil supplies afaik. Whether or not the US was safer then or now is not even measurable.

There's every reason to believe that they'd continue to succeed.

With 12 years of multiple failed UN Resolutions all essentially referring to preceding Resolutions, the facts suggest the reason to believe only that more UN Resolutions would be required.

The only goals which they failed at were humanitarian. This is too bad, but again remember that the war has been even worse---people dying at a higher rate---and has not been cost effective. You can save a lot of starving people with $3 trillion.

Unfortunately, had Desert Storm and Fox not been necessary, a lot of starving people would've been fed. I believe the action in Iraq is about much more than Iraq, but we've hashed this out to death and gotten nowhere with one another. The "death at a higher rate" fact is extremely unfortunate, but I believe inaction would've proven equally dismal for all involved.

I'm afraid you are off by a factor of one thousand. I think this is why we have a hard time communicating. You feel like $15 billion is pocket change between friends, while I think of it as significant.

No. We have a hard time communicating because you insist on putting words into my mouth. I never once mentioned that $15 billion was pocket change. In fact, I had mistaken your billion for million and was still interested in seeing what it was you were referring to.

Google Iraq audit if you want to catch up with the news.

Unfortunately, I've come to expect this sort of governmental financial mismanagement and short of marching on Pennsylvania Ave, what to do? This is consistent with my distaste for large government bureaucracy. The Pentagon audited itself and found a whole bunch of missing dollars. Brother, there have been missing dollars in government since its inception. This is not an indication of whether or not military action is justified, it is indicative of mismanagement of the highest order. I never claimed I was happy with how this Administration has managed aspects of this action, only that action is necessary and there has been much progress. This does not excuse $15 billion dollars of lost money on the backs of taxpayers, but it is yet another battle against government mismanagement, waste, and fraud. After all, FEMA spends $250,000 a month to store about 10,000 empty mobile homes at an airfield in Hope, Ark. Should we pull the hurricane relief package too?

Fortunately, the $3 trillion figure includes these costs. It is the additional cost of the war versus maintaining the status quo. Again, maybe you are losing track of a few orders of magnitude?

So... you're talking about action against Iraq since 1990 and to some future ambiguous date of current spending??? This is how you're coming up with the $3trillion? Instead of proposing that I'm missing orders of magnitudes, substantiate the claim. Otherwise, you may as well use $6 trillion, it's a much bigger figure.

And who was doing that? My claim is that the US was safe and our oil supplies secure.

Who made the claim that our oil supplies were in jeopardy? Just because you've bought into the "war for oil" nonsense does not mean that this action was to secure a less than 5% allotment of our oil.

A little trouble between Iraq and Iran actually makes the US safer, since they were both our enemies.

On the contrary, they were both stated enemies of an ally of ours in the region. Bad and bad.

Ah, so you are one of those who continues to believe the aliens theory.

Yep. Me, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, both Clintons, Graham, Waxman, Rockefeller, Byrd, Gore, Levin, Berger, Albright, Daschle, etc...

Any evidence that they "were privy to the exact same intel as the President"?

... as President Clinton? Absolutely! They were all on board! It was their stated goal during the Clinton Administration upon drafting the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Hillary in 2003; “The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House"

So... I don't know about aliens, but you must believe they were either "spirited" out of Iraq between 1998 and 2001 or 2001 and 2003, which is it tie? You remain remarkably silent on this point.

Now they would dispute it (obviously). But more importantly, during the crisis leading up to war, they publicly complained that they weren't getting the intel access they needed.

Any evidence that they were "complaining about not getting the intel access they needed during the crisis leading up to the war"?

I should just trust you on that? Once again, the sanctions were successful at defending the US and protecting our oil supplies. You can't dispute that.

I not only disputed the disingenuous foundation upon which this argument rests, but the argument itself. Ad nauseam.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

teh horror, I mean compared to right wingers, fascists, religious hypocrites and dogmatic bigots.

Oh the irony of ironies. Exhibit x of your progressive movement ladies and gentlemen.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know how you can say this. The documents for WMDs blueprints among information on trying to attain the necessary material were both found in Iraq. Again, David Kay reported on this in great detail. As for Iraq's military; there's everything to suggest our Resolutions and deals with Iraq were only bolstering Iraq's military while withholding provisions from the Iraqi people.

Because there weren't any WMD! Iraq wanted to get WMD and the sanctions prevented Iraq from getting any. The sanctions were successful. You can't spin them as being unsuccessful. There is nothing to suggest that the resolutions were bolstering Iraq's military. The military fell apart completely.

Iraq was what... 7th on the list of those who provided us with oil? There was nothing in the UN resolutions about securing US oil supplies afaik. Whether or not the US was safer then or now is not even measurable.

That's nonsense. The US was definitely safer then. Who cares if the resolutions said they were about securing US oil supplies? The reason the US supported the resolutions was to secure our oil supplies, regardless of the text of the actual resolutions. You know that, don't play stupid. Again, the resolutions were successful from the US point of view.

With 12 years of multiple failed UN Resolutions all essentially referring to preceding Resolutions, the facts suggest the reason to believe only that more UN Resolutions would be required.

The resolutions were successful. What is wrong with more UN resolutions being required? That is how diplomacy works. The idea that preventing one more resolution is somehow worth $3 trillion---that I don't get.

Unfortunately, had Desert Storm and Fox not been necessary, a lot of starving people would've been fed. I believe the action in Iraq is about much more than Iraq, but we've hashed this out to death and gotten nowhere with one another. The "death at a higher rate" fact is extremely unfortunate, but I believe inaction would've proven equally dismal for all involved.

Again, this is something that can be measured. You say things would have been "equally dismal" but acknowledge that the war has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more people. To me, this is not "equally dismal." This can be measured. National security can also be evaluated.

In fact, I had mistaken your billion for million and was still interested in seeing what it was you were referring to.

Maybe if you read the news on Iraq you'd have a different point of view. You complained about your news sources before so I guess that is still the problem. I read the NY Times but there are other decent newspapers and websites, too.

So... you're talking about action against Iraq since 1990 and to some future ambiguous date of current spending??? This is how you're coming up with the $3 trillion? Instead of proposing that I'm missing orders of magnitudes, substantiate the claim. Otherwise, you may as well use $6 trillion, it's a much bigger figure.

The $3 trillion figure comes from the most prominent study on the cost of the war. I did not make it up. I'd like to assume that you know that, and that you know the assumptions behind the figure.

On the contrary, they were both stated enemies of an ally of ours in the region. Bad and bad.

Why do you say "on the contrary"? That's what I said, too, we agree.

Hillary in 2003; “The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House"

I don't think Hillary even had a security clearance when she was in the White House (link), so I don't know what "what we saw in the White House" is supposed to mean. Don't fall for her "experience" campaign shtick. And note her phrasing: "The intelligence which the president shared with us…" There is no indication that she had access to the same information as Bush, she and others only knew what the president gave them. Congress doesn't have its own intelligence agencies.

I not only disputed the disingenuous foundation upon which this argument rests, but the argument itself. Ad nauseam.

But you can't dispute that the sanctions were successful in preventing Iraq from getting WMD or maintaining its military. Whether or not these were stated goals of the UN resolutions, they were clearly goals of the US in supporting those resolutions.

[peeb]

No one can dispute that the US sanctions were working. There were no WMDs.

[TheWOAT]

They worked for some things, not for others.

[peeb]

They worked for preventing Iraq from developing WMDs and being a security threat in the region.

[paul w]

There was no endgame. I'm a big critic of the war, and everything about the administration's handling, motives and so on. But I do believe that we (Clinton, Bush Sr. and the rest of the international community involved in the first GW) have gotten a huge pass for what led up to the war. Sanctions weren't resolving the issue. Saddam even somewhat deftly played himself into a defiant anti-western tyranny figure, getting more and more sympathy.

Look at Afghanistan. What the hell are we doing in the region other than clumsily attacking the powers that defy us? We've built next to nothing, and left a lot of damage in our wake.

You all want to champion the wars for the good of this nation, fine. Wake me when we finally get around to actually establishing peace somewhere else - which should ultimately be what all these wars are about.

[peeb]

The endgame for sanctions was to wait Saddam out. He wasn't a problem for the rest of the world, and sooner or later the Iraqis would have dealt with him.

[Andy8]

Oil is thicker than blood.

[NZFL]

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
Basically he was Hitlers personal Banker in the US and funded the Nazi war machine.
So what's new? Nothing, Bush is just completing Hitlers Agenda and America has become the modern day Nazis.
Since Bush has risen to power, Democracy has taken a side step into corporate fascism and the world has entered a period replicating WW2.
Hitlers agenda was to secure the oil fields in the middle east, unify Europe, a unilateral currency dictated by retards in Washington and Brussels and the enslavement of the people of the world through corruption of the banks and co operation of the corporates. We are not free, we do not live in a society where 'We the People' have a say. We are dictated to by Bush Cronies and Bankers who control every aspect of our so called Free Lives!
Wake up everyone. Its do or die, speak or forever be ignorant and silent. Ask questions that matter and don't be distracted by idiots in pin stripes who baffle you with bull crap. Stop paying Income Tax! Its unconstitutional, You fought the bloody English and became independent for that very same reason. You drew up a piece of paper holier than the 10 Commandments in American terms. The 16th Amendment is all about that, so WAKE UP and do something about it. Your country has been stolen away from you. TAKE IT BACK!

[tie]

Originally Posted by paul w 

Sanctions weren't resolving the issue.

ebuddy said the same thing, and used it to justify a $3 trillion war. But that doesn't make sense. What does it matter if sanctions weren't resolving the issue? They were controlling the issue and saving us trillions of dollars, which is quite good enough for me.