So, which part of the Iraq war was bad again?

[GRUNHERZ]

Why do you assume that all the Shiites would automatically want a hardline religious government? Heck there is growing public resentment in Iran about that very issue. Not all of them are fanatics, and wwhat the USa must do is give those people a chance to participate freely.  

What you are saying is that we should just give up now, do nothing, and leave it up to the gang with the most guns and most fanatics. I dont like that attitude. Perhaps you rationalize this in some way but the reality of it is just that - your thinking will naturally guarntee a government of militant fanatics who will supress moderates. My view is that we give it an honest go and try to positively inflence Iraq's future, and this will literally reduce the probability of a hardline undemocratic militant rgime popping up.  Thats a better way, and frankly I also think the USA  has a somewhat better track record on building solid post-war democratic traditions than does europe, so maybe europe should let America do it's thing again.  

[blue1]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Glad you liked that.

But seriously I think the US presence can be a positive force in setting up a stable democratic future for iraq, naturally people can differ in their opinion of this.

God bless your optimism Grunherz, already there is talk of replacing American troops in Baghdad with Brits. Simply because the US Army has failed to secure the city properly and large parts of it are basically lawless largely because the US army wont't go into them. The US Army simply has no experience of working in an urban environment. A few more months of this and Baghdad will be a terrorist timebomb.

Maybe better to get out and leave it to the 'hand wringing European appeasers.'

Nuke the vote is no endorsement of the war, merely an example of realpolitik. They had to deal with the reality of the situation as it exists right now and move on. The aim is to do what's best for Iraq and the rest of us right now.

I was in two minds about the war believing that in the end it might be good for the Iraqis even though I doubted the WMD issue. This seems borne out. Just exactly where are all these WMD's? There should be some evidence somewhere, but nothing has appeared.

It seems to me that there will soon be a subtle campaign saying that while WMD's were not found, they had either all been destroyed to cover the evidence or that Saddam was planning to make more.

[GRUNHERZ]

But blue my point is that Iraq will be nutcase country if the USA and Brits  (of course gotta give them recognition for the help) pull out now as some people want. However if we stay there is a chance that we will help move the contry in the right direction and make it better and more stable in the long run. Thats worth staying agound for. Iraq was once a great highly educated nation of teachers, scientists, engineers, musicians and architects - it can be so again but we must be there for them in the long run.

[NUKE]

For you people that think the US is stealing Iraq's oil, The UN security counsel voted 14-0 in favor of  the US and UK using Iraq's oil revenues to help rebuild Iraq. So I guess the UN condones the stealing of Iraq's oil.

And wasn't a typical lefty argument that millions of Iraqis were dying as a result of UN sanctions ?

[blue1]

That's true Gruny, hence the unanimous vote. The US and the British are the de facto powers in Iraq and the best hope for a secure future right now. Even the French know that. The problem is that the US Army is blunt instrument and has little or no experience in these situation. The Brits on the other hand have long and bitter experience in dealing with semi hostile locals in cities. It would be a pity if after all the good stuff was thrown away because a few farmboys and street kids in uniform with poor fire discipline setback American efforts to get the country running again. In any case European or other troops on the streets have less kudos as targets for the zealots.

So there is a case to be made for US troops to back off and let others do the re-building. But for the US to remain the dominant factor in the background. It is frightening how fast soldiers can go from 'liberators' to 'occupiers' or 'oppressors'.

Incidently I think the war was partly about oil, not to steal it but secure it. The strongly anti war crowd act as if that was a bad thing. But the fact of the matter is that we need a secure supply of oil until something else replaces it. It looks to me as if Saudia Arabia is in the early stages of going the way of Iran only this time it will be a Sunni theocracy actively hostile to the West and it's Shiite neighbours Iran and Iraq. Keeping Iraq onside is I suspect an important insurance policy against the loss of Saudi oil.

The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.

The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.  

Life, politics and war, as ever is always a lot more complicated than some people think.


Nuke says
"How many more worms are left that will still argue that the war and it's outcome was a bad thing?"

My answer to that is, we don't yet know the outcome.  Give it ten years then I give you my answer.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by NUKE
For you people that think the US is stealing Iraq's oil, The UN security counsel voted 14-0 in favor of  the US and UK using Iraq's oil revenues to help rebuild Iraq. So I guess the UN condones the stealing of Iraq's oil.

 

So now you're listening to the UN?..lol

[Naso]

Originally posted by blue1
The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.

The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.  

Life, politics and war, as ever is always a lot more complicated than some people think.
 

Yeah Blue!!

Interesting post, but watch out.

You will become labeled soon as US-heater.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by NUKE
so what part of the war was bad? That we didn't find WMD yet or the fact that Iraqis are free, UN lifted sanctions and Saddamn is gone?


You can't argue that the war had a negative outcome, can you? And since you can't argue that the outcome was negative, you can only sight the "reasons" for the war ( and possitive outcome) as your source of misery.

You people are sad, yet funny

What the hell are you blabbering on about now?  Read my post again.

[SLO]

Originally posted by NUKE
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030523/D7R6N4PG1.html
So, those that opposed the war..... what part of the war don't you like?

Death.....

[gofaster]

I enjoyed watching Walter Rogers deliver his front-line combat reports via satellite mobile camera phone.  My inner child really got a kick out of watching those tanks roll through the desert blowing stuff up.  Ka-Boom!  Yeah!

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by NUKE
You can't argue that the war had a negative outcome, can you?

Yup! Did it have a positive impact in Iraq...maybe.  Saddam is gone (which is a plus), but the question of who/what will replace him is still unanswered.

So, what have been the negative impacts?

1) The economy stupid.  My biggest argument against the war was that we should not waist our resources to liberate a bunch of folks who did not have enough intestinal fortitude to take Saddam out for themselves.

As of 4/16 the cost of the war was estimated at $20 billion.  The continuing operation, ie occupation, costs $2b per month, so we are up to about $22b (BTW, these numbers are from the White House and therefore may be conservative). This does not include the money the US will be kicking in to help with reconstruction (this is despite using oil revenues for that purpose).  The President has asked for a total of $63b for the next year to pay for the war/occupation and $10.3b for reconstruction of Iraq.  So, we have $73b of our taxpayer dollars going towards paying for a war when our economy is in the toejamter.  

What else could we have done with that money that would have provided a real benefit for our citizens?  What benefit did we get from that expenditure?  Did we get rid of the WMD?  Has the action impeded terrorist?  Has our national security improved?  Would our national security and war on terrorism have been better served if that $73b were spent on counter intelligence?  Frederic Bastiat would say we will never know.

The war also had a domestic economic impact.  The airlines estimated that they lost nearly $7b in revenues due to the war and the build up.  Not to mention the impact that oil prices that reached nearly $40/bbl had on the economy (while part of that increase can be blamed on Venezuela's drop in production, but uncertainty due to the war was definitely a major cause for the price increase).  The added cost to the US for the last 6 months that oil prices have been increasing has been approximately $25b...and those are the direct costs, which does not include the trickle down effects from increased production and transportation costs that are passed on to the consumer.

2) Lost credibility. "Every statement I make today is backed up by ... solid sources," Colin Powell told the United Nations.  OK...so where are they now?  Who are those sources?  Saddam is gone, the threat to them is over...lay it out.  Unfortunately, it appears the Bush Administration lied us into war.  So if Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a hummer in the Oval Office (note that the shot he fired killed no one, but did ruin a perfectly good dress), what should happen to Bush for lying to the American people (which cost both lives and wealth)?  And if Bush was simply trusting the information (intelligence is too strong a word for this case) given by his advisors, then who in the Administration is the liar and what should be their punishment?

[Pongo]

There is nothing bad. We should have more wars! they are great.It worked so well you should have a war in the states every 4 years instead of an election.
I gather since you are writing this you are not one of the 3000 Iraqi civilians killed in the war. or the little boy with his arms and legs blown off. Nor was that your son I imagine.

As a general priciple its bad to lie to start a war. It puts a leader and a country in very bad company.

[Toad]

"HI, welcome McSaddam's! We'll have your 'WMD Proof' out in 30 days or less or your money back! Please drive to the next window for pickup."

Maybe they lied. Maybe they didn't. I'm still waiting to see. Was it really just 1 May that they declared the "combat phase" over? Was it really just 3 weeks ago?

Give me a year to hide 50 semi loads of 55 gallon drums in the New Mexico desert and I'll give you 3 weeks to find one semi load.

As I've said many times, I'm willing to give it 6 months or a year. Plenty of time  before the next election to hold him responsible if he lied. And count on this: If he did, I will hold him responsible and vote (and support others) accordingly.

I know what the definition of "is" is.

The old slippery slope. One guy faces the camera and puts out baldface lies to the audience, gets away with it and the next thing you know, they think they all can get away with it.

[Arfann]

. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.

[Toad]

Yer right. Better those relative few civilians survive and some new mass Shiite or Kurd graves get created at a later date.

I'm selectively indignant about needless civilian death too!