Just how fast are things going in Iraq?

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Just how fast are things going in Iraq?

Post by mglenn » Sep 16th 2003, 3:23 pm

We've been there four-and-a-half months since the end of major military combat. ... Four-and-a-half months is just four-and-a-half months. Let me give you some comparison for context: In Germany after World War II, it took three years to get an independent central bank. In Iraq, it took two months. To get police established in Germany, it took 14 months. In Iraq, it's taken two months. To get a new currency, it took three years in Germany. In Iraq, it's taken two-and-a-half months. To get a cabinet it took 14 months in Germany, it's taken four months in Iraq. It is moving at a very rapid pace. And that is a good thing.
From Donald Rumsfeld on Face the Nation Sept. 14th 2003

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... f0261.html


Yet more of our MTV Generation not understanding that everything doesn't happen overnight when they ask how long will it take.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
Sascha (sab)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 1547
Joined: Jun 10th 1999, 5:20 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by Sascha (sab) » Sep 16th 2003, 6:20 pm

Great, Mr. Rumsfeld. Comparing the high-tech high precision 2-month war in Iraq with the seven years of WWII and its millions of dead civilians, wiped out cities and completely destroyed infrastucture. Well done, Mr. Rumsfeld. :evil: And he has german ancestors? Ridiculous.

Gnnnnnmph, why-oh-why did I click on the political discussion forum? I wanted to stay out of this.

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Sep 16th 2003, 7:05 pm

He should be immediately removed from office for daring to compare the defeat of Nazi Germany with the Bush occupation of Iraq. If I was a vet I'd demand a retraction and an apology.

Do these clowns know how the rest of the world views them, and how future Americans will as well?

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Sep 16th 2003, 11:53 pm

The body count might not be as high, but the decimation of Iraq's infrastructure is comparable to what happened to Germany and Japan. Of course, most of the problems in Iraq were caused by Saddam. He not only starved his enemies, he starved the entire country for years. The entire country just appears to be a mess. From what I understand, the Bush team didn't have a clue how bad things were in Iraq. This is surprising because we supposedly have the best intelligence agencies in the world. Rumsfeld himself said that the administration was surprised by the total collapse of the Iraqi government and by how badly Iraq's energy, water, and other utilities have collapsed after years of neglect. Unfortunately, since the US invaded Iraq, it has to pay the bill. Of course, the US could just leave Iraq to fend for itself. However, that would do little to fight the war on terrorism. The terrorists would take over the country. Who knows? Saddam could just walk back into power. There are still many people in Russia who want the communists back. I don't know where I'm going with this post. I'll close with this thought -- the US could have rebuilt the entire power grid with the money that's been spent on Iraq so far. Iraq's power grid will be rebuilt before the US's power grid. The sad fact is that we will need to take care of Iraq. The consequences of not doing so are very great.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Sep 17th 2003, 5:56 am

I can't get the link to work... but I think that he's got a nerve comparing the post-WW2 situation in Europe with what has happened in Iraq.

It's to the point of insulting. I mean, hitler was hitler. He was marching across the country sweeping up Jews to gas them in concentration camps. Infrastructure was not just 'damaged' it was completely obliterated. It was a war that was wholly and completely justified. It lasted a number of years.

Europe was invaded. The allies fought back. We did not troop into another country and destroy its infrastructure and then take ages to rebuild it.

Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no doubt saddam is an evil man. So was hitler. But I'm afraid that there the similarity ends.

This war lasted 2 months and I've yet to see a convincing justification in the form of a credible threat to other nations.

In WW2 the whole thing escalated beyond control pretty quickly, from what I understand. It was virtually impossible to make a 'plan' for rebuilding before the damage could be assessed as everything was confused and disoriented and for a long time nobody knew who was going to win. for goodness sake, park railings were melted down to make artillery... people were on rations... there wasn't time or resource to think of what to do afterwards.

In Iraq, however, the debate about whether to go to war lasted months. Bush had clearly made up his mind he was going to invade. He should have used his time prior to invasion to think about the likely post-war situation (I mean there was never any doubt who was going to win) and how best to deal with it. He should have had a development plan in place and organised the finances to fund it. It's too little, too late at the moment. He and his administration clearly should have had the foresight to at least consider it and have a plan prior to even sending the forces in.
TomSpeed wrote:The body count might not be as high, but the decimation of Iraq's infrastructure is comparable to what happened to Germany and Japan. ...he starved the entire country for years
And TomSpeed, I think you might want to consider your statement again. Certainly before the war Europe had an infrastructure that was nowhere near as starved as you seem to think. People weren't living in caves; we had a stable society (why is it that Americans have this impression that Europe is/was some kind of second-class society?). That was destroyed.

The two just can't be compared.

I take mglenn's point that these things take time. I'm bemoaning the lack of organisation, the pouring of money and soldiers down a black hole, and the fact that NOBODY seems to have given reconstruction even a moment's thought prior to the war's end.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Sep 17th 2003, 7:44 am

The ONLY "reason" we now "need" to fight terrorists in Iraq is because of the situation WE have now created.

Is Saddam a bad guy? Sure. Is that reason to invade a sovereign country, that was not attacking another (or even armed), without UN authorization? No.

Don't be sucked into the administration's changing tune on Iraq. We were told it was about Nuclear and other weapons. Now its supposedly about "liberating" the Iraq people. It's a croc. If so, why aren't we in Sri Lanka? Liberia? Ruwanda? China? Cuba? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Syria?

If Saddam was such an inherent evil, why did Donald Rumsfeld, at the bequest of Reagan, sell him chemical weapons?

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Sep 17th 2003, 11:11 am

I had a whole nice response typed out to all your points and my damn session timed out and I lost it..... :evil:
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Sep 17th 2003, 11:52 am

Ok here are the major points not so well put, but I don't want to retype all I had.

First comparing Iraq to germany is completely relivent, its the last successfull exercise in nation building it should be our guide and our yard stick.

Europe was not invaded it was given away wholesale to the germans by france and England because they could not stand against the more advanced German Army. Poland led horse charges against tanks when germany invaded! See here http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ ... ch_46.html for Neville Chamberlain's speech that gave Germany Czechoslovakia.

Things didn't not happen fast in WW2. It was almost a year later till England and France Declared war on Germany and almost nine months till Germany invaded Holland, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

I don't understand who anyone can listen to the horrors that happened in Iraq to other humans and say there was no justification... thats just cold!!!
Just because it doesn't effect you and you can go down to Walmart and BK anytime you want doesn't mean its ok to allow others in this world to suffer! By saying there was no justification you are justifing the acts of putting people in plastic shedders and feeding them to lions! How do you justify that to yourself? Really I want to know?

I have yet to see any evidence of this lack of organization. Please point it out to me. We've lost 150+ soldiers since the end of the war. More children died here in the US by drowning in 5 gallon buckets in the same amount of time. Why arn't you complaining about the threat that 5 gallon buckets?

And Last but certainly not least: :D
JPP13 wrote:The ONLY "reason" we now "need" to fight terrorists in Iraq is because of the situation WE have now created.
That's the old static argument. Your premises is based on the the illusion that nothing in the middle east would ever change. Saddam was rebuilding him army and would have posed a threat to the region and the world in the future. We simply dealt with the threat now and lost far less lives for doing it.
JPP13 wrote:Sure. Is that reason to invade a sovereign country, that was not attacking another (or even armed), without UN authorization? No.
It was a good enough reason for Clinton in Kosovo. But you don't want me to point fingers at Clinton so I'll point to the statements above. How is it that you look at yourself in the mirror and say its ok for you to live your life while people are fed to lions, dipped in acid, daughters raped in front of fathers, put into plastic shredders, women hung upside down while having their period... By saying we don't have justification you justify those acts!
JPP13 wrote:...It's a croc.
Yup it is. I said yesterday that the reason we did it was not for those reason at all, they were side effects. The two main reasons were to deal with a threat that would need to be dealt with later at a time when we had the best advantage. And two to show the other threats to peace and america that we mean business and can and will fight. Iraq was a piece of the puzzle in dealing with the rest of the countries you mentioned.
JPP13 wrote:If Saddam was such an inherent evil, why did Donald Rumsfeld, at the bequest of Reagan, sell him chemical weapons?
I forget his name, but I believe it was an Airforce General that warned Reagan that this would bite us in the ass. But we also yelled at Isreal for bombing the reactor in Iraq too. It was wrong and you are completely right, but we must look at the other issues of the time. We felt that it was better to support Saddam against the extremist government of Iran which was very hostile to the US at the time ( remember those hostages ). The Russians were a much bigger threat at the time and they were involved in a war in Afghanistan. The last thing anyone was going to do was get involved in a direct armed conflict with anyone right next door to the russians. Vietnam was even over for 10 year yet.
Last edited by mglenn on Sep 17th 2003, 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Sep 17th 2003, 11:55 am

I hate that. That's why I type all my stuff in Word now, and then copy it over. Also helps with the fact I can't spell.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Sep 17th 2003, 4:01 pm

I'm sorry, but I don't see Saddam's torturing his own people as falling under American strategic national interest. If that seems heartless, so be it. Now I could see taking Saddam out now versus later when he has nukes and/or the US protecting it's access to Iraq's oil as being in the national interest. Unfortunately, helping people has more political play than looking out for number one. The national interest is all about looking out for yourself though. Everything else is sugarcoating.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Sep 17th 2003, 4:18 pm

mglenn wrote:Ok here are the major points not so well put, but I don't want to retype all I had.

First comparing Iraq to germany is completely relivent, its the last successfull exercise in nation building it should be our guide and our yard stick.
Actually I have heard that nation building was going on pretty well in Kosvo & Bosnia.
Europe was not invaded it was given away wholesale to the germans by france and England because they could not stand against the more advanced German Army.
Hello, Battle of Britain. Brits, Poles and French did pretty well against the German Air Force.

I don't understand who anyone can listen to the horrors that happened in Iraq to other humans and say there was no justification... thats just cold!!!
Yeah, but is it worth 87 billion plus, nearly 300 dead and at least 1,500 wounded? And why Iraq? Pakistan is ruled by the military and has nuclear weapons, why not there? How about the Sudan? How about a dozen other countries with repressive goverments and access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Why is Iraq so special and these other countries not?

Just because it doesn't effect you and you can go down to Walmart and BK anytime you want doesn't mean its ok to allow others in this world to suffer!
See above. And if that was really the justification for Iraq, why the horse and pony show with WMDs? Why did the Administration talk up a blue streak about weapons they can't find? Why did the Administration retaliate against Ambassador Wilson for simplying telling the truth? no uranium in Niger for the Saddam to buy.
I have yet to see any evidence of this lack of organization. Please point it out to me. We've lost 150+ soldiers since the end of the war. More children died here in the US by drowning in 5 gallon buckets in the same amount of time. Why arn't you complaining about the threat that 5 gallon buckets?
That's a specious argument. George Bush didn't lie to us about the danger of drowning in a bucket of water. He did lie to the American people, and the rest of the world, about WMDs and sent a lot of brave men and women off to war they didn't need to fight.
It was a good enough reason for Clinton in Kosovo. But you don't want me to point fingers at Clinton so I'll point to the statements above. How is it that you look at yourself in the mirror and say its ok for you to live your life while people are fed to lions, dipped in acid, daughters raped in front of fathers, put into plastic shredders, women hung upside down while having their period... By saying we don't have justification you justify those acts!
Kosvo is not Iraq. Clinton did not lie to us about why we were going into Kosvo. It is very sad what happened to those under Saddam's regime. Those were all valued human beings. Again, there are tons of hot spots all around the globe, some much more of a threat to the United States then Iraq ever was. Why Iraq and not somewhere else?

Mglenn & Jpp13 thanks for discussing the impact the Reagan Administration on Iraq and its military. At one point it was considered the US foreign policy to back Iraq in its war with Iran. That meant among other things supplying the Iraqis with weapons.

Mglenn, glad to see ya back in the discussion topic, Andrewgd was getting so bored.

:D

LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Sep 17th 2003, 4:21 pm

sab wrote:Great, Mr. Rumsfeld. Comparing the high-tech high precision 2-month war in Iraq with the seven years of WWII and its millions of dead civilians, wiped out cities and completely destroyed infrastucture. Well done, Mr. Rumsfeld. :evil: And he has german ancestors? Ridiculous.

Gnnnnnmph, why-oh-why did I click on the political discussion forum? I wanted to stay out of this.
I hear ya sab, it is soo easy to get sucked into the debate.

Thanks though for expressing your thoughts on the subject at hand. Back to the discussion...

LanceMan

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Sep 18th 2003, 4:47 am

mglenn wrote: its the last successfull exercise in nation building it should be our guide and our yard stick.
I agree that there should be a measure of success. What I don't agree with is the fact that you can say 'well it took years in the case of WW2 and therefore it's fine if it takes just as long in Iraq.'
mglenn wrote:Europe was not invaded it was given away wholesale to the germans by france and England
Honestly, now you are just being offensive. Yes, the policy of appeasement went on too long. Yes, there were pockets of Nazism in both France and England. No, 'we' as nations did not give 'Europe' of which by the way we are part, away to Germany. People fought and died to stand up for freedom and to stop the senseless killing of jews. The war was fought and won by many brave people, including Americans, but let's not forget the vast civilian efforts and huge military victories of the allies. You might have learnt in school that the Americans won WW2 for the allies. Let me assure you that is a warped view.
[/quote]
mglenn wrote: I don't understand who anyone can listen to the horrors that happened in Iraq to other humans and say there was no justification... thats just cold!!!
Just because it doesn't effect you and you can go down to Walmart and BK anytime you want doesn't mean its ok to allow others in this world to suffer! By saying there was no justification you are justifing the acts of putting people in plastic shedders and feeding them to lions! How do you justify that to yourself? Really I want to know?
I think we've been through this on another thread. I certainly don't think it is OK to allow other people to suffer and turn a blind eye just because I can still go into Sainsburys and buy my food. In fact I think you would find me an extremely compassionate person. However, in the case of Iraq, I don't believe war was justified. So far as I know, the international rules of war, which I think all civilised societies must follow, state that there must be a credible immediate threat to the security of your nation (or those in your alliance) before you attack another nation. In my opinion, there is no sufficient evidence of that threat in this case. Full stop, end of story. It is not that I wanted the Iraqi people to continue suffering. However, I am worried by the sort of 'international moral dictats' issued by the US government on this. As I say, we've been through this before and you and I have made our opinions clear. We'll have to agree to disagree and you'll have to trust that I'm not a malicious evil person who wishes the Iraqi nation confined to the gutter of Saddam. :shock:
mglenn wrote:I have yet to see any evidence of this lack of organization. Please point it out to me. We've lost 150+ soldiers since the end of the war. More children died here in the US by drowning in 5 gallon buckets in the same amount of time. Why arn't you complaining about the threat that 5 gallon buckets?
We didn't go to war to protect children from 5 gallon buckets. We didn't even go to war to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam. In the UK, the war was 'justified' by WMDs.

And you're quite right to ask me for evidence. Here's some:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 20,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 07,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 49,00.html - this one is particularly interesting as it comes from a US guy in a position of authority in Iraq.

Please read it.
mglenn wrote: Saddam was rebuilding him army and would have posed a threat to the region and the world in the future.
Ahhh, this is an interesting twist. Now he's suddenly not an immediate threat, but merely a potential threat in the future? This in my opinion is even more shaky ground for going to war than the supposed existence of actual WMDs, though unproven.

mglenn wrote: How is it that you look at yourself in the mirror and say its ok for you to live your life while people are fed to lions, dipped in acid, daughters raped in front of fathers, put into plastic shredders, women hung upside down while having their period... By saying we don't have justification you justify those acts!
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago :D

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Sep 18th 2003, 3:18 pm

lance wrote:Hello, Battle of Britain. Brits, Poles and French did pretty well against the German Air Force.
As I stated the Pole’s were riding horse charges against tanks. Hardly and effective counter attack. The French invasion started on May 10th 1940 and France was under German control by June 14th 1940. Once again hardly an effective resistance.

Now as for the Battle of Britain, the air war. Churchill had foreseen the German threat years in advance and being the head of the secret committee on air-defense research with in the British government he was able to prepare them for this threat. Using cracked radio codes and radar the British were able to effectively use their limited resources to counter the German air attacks.
lance wrote:Yeah, but is it worth 87 billion plus, nearly 300 dead and at least 1,500 wounded?
To save tens of thousands a year from being put to death for simply having an opinion? Abso-freakin-lutely!! I know many many men and women who are serving or have served in Iraq and I’ve yet to meet one that would not fight for the freedom of others and if in was needed sacrifice their life for it. If I met someone in the armed forces that did not feel we should be there I would ask them why they were in the military in the first place then. I’m betting there answer would be that it’s a paycheck or some variation of that theme.

By saying that freedom is not worth 300 deaths you are saying that the thousands that died on the beaches of Normandy were far to expensive for the value we have today. I disagree!
lance wrote:And why Iraq? Pakistan is ruled by the military and has nuclear weapons, why not there? How about the Sudan? How about a dozen other countries with repressive governments and access to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
Pakistan is working with us now. They are not threatening our allies or us. They do not refer to us as the Great Satan. Is everything perfect there? No. But steps are being taken and improvements are being made.

Now as for the rest and why Iraq… well you have to start somewhere don’t you? You continue to point out all these things that are the real reasons for Bush to invade, and I say that that’s not just one reason its many many reasons. Yes we stopped a future threat, yes we stabilized a major source of oil, yes we freed a repressed people, and yes we sent a message to other countries and on and on. Could we have gotten such a large number of positives by invading say N. Korea or Cuba? Yes we would have gotten some of those effects but not all of them. By invading Iraq we accomplished the largest number of positive and needed effects with the least amount of negative ones.
lance wrote:And if that was really the justification for Iraq, why the horse and pony show with WMDs? Why did the Administration talk up a blue streak about weapons they can't find?
Because we did want to the UN backing on this and that was the most effective argument in that area. After all the UN had issued 17 resolutions on the subject. They certainly felt they were there, otherwise why issue 17 resolutions and spend billions on Weapon’s Inspectors to look for something that that wasn’t there? It’s using the best argument for the situation. It doesn’t mean it’s the only argument. If there are 17 resolutions on WMD and 3 on human rights violations you don’t go in with the human rights violations as your main argument. But it doesn’t mean it’s not a valid one.
lance wrote:That's a specious argument. George Bush didn't lie to us about the danger of drowning in a bucket of water. He did lie to the American people, and the rest of the world, about WMDs and sent a lot of brave men and women off to war they didn't need to fight.
By saying that Bush lied about the WMD means that the UN also lied because they had weapons inspectors in there looking for WMD’s that they too knew were not there. (Hold on I have to put on my tin foil hat for this) we could keep going round and round here and say that it was all a plan buy the military industrial complex and the trilateral commission, but the simple fact is that there was clear evidence and historical president that Saddam had and was trying to get more WMD’s. The question in the UN was not if they were there, but how to deal with the fact that they had, were, and more than likely going to be more of them there.
lance wrote:Clinton did not lie to us about why we were going into Kosvo.
That’s a matter of opinion. Clinton did what he did in Kosvo to draw attention in the media away from facts that were being uncovered about his wrongdoings. And when the threat of those facts died down Clinton signed the cease-fire agreement that had been on the table with Milosivic since before the air strikes started.
starbug wrote:What I don't agree with is the fact that you can say 'well it took years in the case of WW2 and therefore it's fine if it takes just as long in Iraq.'
It hasn’t been five months though? And we’ve done more than we did almost 4 times as long in Germany. No one is saying it will take 7 years. But it will take time and also remember that at the end of those 7 years Germany what not what it is today. If in a year or two years we are still in the same boat, then ok… but five months is a bit short to start saying it’s a failure.

It’s been two years since the attacks and the office space from the world trade centers has not been replaced. Does that mean that NY is a failure and we should just give up on it?

I’m confused should we just send in the Walmarts and such and rebuild in all instantly or should we stabilize the country and allow them to make a decision on how to rebuild? Rebuilding is not as simple as it sounds and we should take our time in doing it and do it right.
starbug wrote:Honestly, now you are just being offensive. Yes, the policy of appeasement went on too long. Yes, there were pockets of Nazism in both France and England. No, 'we' as nations did not give 'Europe' of which by the way we are part, away to Germany. People fought and died to stand up for freedom and to stop the senseless killing of Jews. The war was fought and won by many brave people, including Americans, but let's not forget the vast civilian efforts and huge military victories of the allies.
First off I was not trying to be offensive to those that resisted the Germans attacks and occupation. They risked their lives for their beliefs and I honor them for it. “You’ may not have given the Germans what they took, but the governments of the time did nothing to stop Hitler until May of 1940 when he took over what was left of Europe and the last that was standing in his way of having a direct route to England. The point being that you cannot appease a mad man, you should not allow evil to grow. If England and France had address the issue in the late 20’s and early 30’s we may have been able to avoid war in Europe, although that’s not certain. But it is certain that it gained nothing to allow him to continue with his plans.

Many Americans remember this lesson and do not wish to relearn it with Saddam. We would rather see 300 die now than to risk what could happen if we did nothing.
starbug wrote:You might have learnt in school that the Americans won WW2 for the allies. Let me assure you that is a warped view.
So if the US had not supplied Britain and Russia with military supplies and then assembled the largest military assault force in history Europe would have defeated Hitler? I think not! America did not do it alone, but without our industrial and military power things would not have worked out as they did. And to infer that Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and other US military leaders were not instrumental in the victory over Germany is to me a bit offensive.

starbug wrote: I certainly don't think it is OK to allow other people to suffer and turn a blind eye … In fact I think you would find me an extremely compassionate person.
And I don’t wish to imply otherwise. I am simply playing devils advocate here and trying to show you that saying there is no justification is the same as turning a blind eye.
starbug wrote:So far as I know, the international rules of war, which I think all civilized societies must follow, state that there must be a credible immediate threat to the security of your nation (or those in your alliance) before you attack another nation.
If you are referring to the “Rules of war” set down in the such documents as the Geneva Convention and of UN documents they say no such thing. In fact wars have come very close to being declared over such small things as a spy plane flight ( hardly a “credible immediate threat” ). War is simply force applied to achieve a desired result. The US no longer wished to deal with the real, fake, actual or perceived threat that Iraq presented to the region, its people and our Allies. For 10 years we attempt to address that threat through diplomatic means and saw no signs that it was working or going to work in the future. You seem to feel that the US should not act in its own interests. That this is somehow wrong for us to do. We attempted to work with the rest of the civilized world to solve the issues we had there. But there were those in the civilized world that continued to supply Saddam with reactors, weapons systems and offensive capability that the US felt was not going to work to ours or anyone else’s favor.
starbug wrote:However, I am worried by the sort of 'international moral dictates' issued by the US government on this.
The US is not trying to exercise a “make the world England” policy here. These military dictatorships do not promote the creation of wealth and prosperity.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose... the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these words before... Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.” – Ayn Rand
starbug wrote:…you'll have to trust that I'm not a malicious evil person who wishes the Iraqi nation confined to the gutter of Saddam.
And I don’t believe you are. That is why I question your belief that their suffering is not enough justification. You ask “me” why we don’t do the same elsewhere then. And I answer that I don’t know… luckily for the world I am not in charge because I am a firm believer in spanking the naughty children of the world. :-D

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke
starbug wrote:We didn't even go to war to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam. In the UK, the war was 'justified' by WMDs.
So I ask you do you have to worry now about an attack with a WMD from Iraq any longer? If we had not invaded could you say that you would have the same level of confidence that we would not be attacked with one.

The goal was to remove the risk of an attack using a WMD that was developed or deployed from Iraq. And I think you have to agree that we have accomplished that goal. Once again its playing what we know for sure now ( and I don’t believe that we have searched all of Iraq and found every thing that’s hidden there, but we have taken it out of play by controlling the area) somehow effects what are actions should have been then. The question before the UN was not if there were weapons but how to best deal with the threat that existed from the historical and intelligence evidence at the time. To say that because we have not found any WMD’s means that Bush knew they were not there is not a logical conclusion.

I read the first two stories, the third required a subscription for me to read (maybe you could email me the text or post it here).

The first invalidates its own argument with this statement: “Iraq's current total power output is 3,362 megawatts. That may not be far off the 4,000MW being produced just before the war but it falls a long way short of today's demand, estimated at between 7,000 and 20,000MW.”

Hmm why is the demand higher now then before the war. Could it be that there are now more businesses and services that require power than there was previously available? Could it be that the demand is out stepping the supply because of the new freedoms that those who wish to work have to execute those wishes? Could it be that those supplying the power will raise their prices to make money to reinvest in the creation of an improved grid able to meet the demand at a more efficient cost? Could it be ( The horror :-D ) the effects of a free market at work?

As for the second story its nothing but spin in my opinion:

Have you ever planned something out… say moving a piece of furniture and it turned out you needed help moving it? Did the fact that you failed to move it by yourself mean that you completely and utterly failed? Or did you simply adjust your plan by calling a friend and get the job done? But wait maybe it was really heavy, did you call and extra friend to make sure you had enough help even though he got there and just ended up drinking your beer and eating your pizza? There is a group of people who wish this venture to fail for whatever reason and they will do and say anything to make it appear that it is ( no tin hats here… just ego and emotion). They accomplish two goals by doing these types of things. One it looks like the powers that be didn’t do enough planning. And second it discourages those in the future from doing the same, both of which increase the chance of overall failure. But instead it is more than likely the realization that more security was needed and so we adjust the plan accordingly.
starbug wrote: Now he's suddenly not an immediate threat, but merely a potential threat in the future?


In case I didn’t make it clear that it is my belief that we did not invade Iraq for a single reason but a multitude of them. And if you look at each reason as an problem then stop to consider the goal to solving that problem you should see that most of those goals have been accomplished. You may not feel that the ends justify the means, but we’ve spoke of justification at great length already here. :-D
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Sep 19th 2003, 1:32 am

A few interesting things I read today:

First, a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 Billion of the $4 Billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

I guess that means we'll just lose 35 Billion dollars of the 87 requested somewhere while rebuilding Iraq.

The next thing I saw was a statistic in Newsweek or Time (sorry, forget which). They adjusted (for inflation) the yearly cost of rebuilding Germany after WWII. It came to around 45 Billion dollars. Quite interesting when compared to the 87 Billion requested by Bush.

And trying to find those stats (and failing), I found this:
Thursday 11 September 2003
WASHINGTON — Iraqis rather than Americans will have to repair most of the damage done to their country by Saddam Hussein's socialist Baath party, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared yesterday.

"I don't believe it's our job to reconstruct that country after 30 years of centralized, Stalinist-like economic controls in that country," Rumsfeld told a National Press Club audience. "The Iraqi people are going to have to reconstruct that country over a period of time."

He added, "The infrastructure of that country was not terribly damaged by the war at all."
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests