[aglandau]

[Baaahb]

[French For Cant Tele]

[TeleAl]

[Baaahb]

I stated above I support the war for the third reason: to protect ourselves, to counter the growth of terrorism.

One could also support the war for moral reasons, but I think there one is on shaky ground.

You have to be a sad-ass mofo to support the war on economic grounds.
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.

[aglandau]

War is business and someone's making a killing. So this is news ?

[TeleAl]

[JL]

Action, even if it is counter productive, is preferable to inaction when someone is either angry or scared.
_________________
When all is said and done, it makes great toast!

[Baaahb]

TA, I don't know whether it is being accomplished, and no one on this forum knows. As with any deep-seated bias, RIF will take decades - if not generatons - to ameliorate. What is clear is that in the last 20 or 40 years, RIF has grown a base that is larger and more organized than we had believed pre 9-11.

One cannot measure the success of the efforts to eliminate the bias by the number of suicide bombings in Iraq. For one, they are more related to sectarian violence than to RIF. The two are related... clearly there are several deep-seated biases in the Middle East that will take decades - or generations - to overcome, including the simplistic Arab-Israeli hatred. For two, they indicate more the extent of the existing problem than whether the bias is increasing or growing --- it is extremely simplistic to guage the success of one's efforts by the actions of one's enemy....for instance, enemies facing defeat often increase the severity and frequency of their counterattacks - e.g. Japan at the end of WWII.

I think it is good that the US has taken a strong stand against RIF. I think it good that the US has taken a position in the Middle East. I think it is good that the Administration understands the depth of the RIF problem, and is gaining greater experience in Middle East politics.

Sure, one can laugh at the bumbling efforts of the Administration, but take all your criticisms and compare the current Administration to the way things used to be done and you will see that the military does change, does adapt, albeit slowly.

For instance, going into Vietnam, there was little discussion of understanding the attitudes of the Vietnamese. The concept of winning hearts and minds largely arose out of that conflict. In the intial stages of entering the Iraqi conflict, I read lots of stories about how the Administration was striving to reach the common Iraqi and to win his heart and mind. The effort was made; I am sure it could have been done better and I am sure we learn from our mistakes, but the point is that the problems we incur in Iraq reflect the depth of the biases in the Middle East more than the competency of the US.

I am glad that we have learned the depth of the RIF problem and now appreciate the need to contain Middle East violence.

As I have said before, the overthrow of Saddam will be seen, with the hindsight of history, as a relatively minor blip in the history of the middle east. The reconstruction of Iraq will also be a blip - if it fails - but has the potential, if it succeeds, of being a watershed event.

What we see now with the Israeli-Hezbollah war and the debate over Iran nukes, is the whoel Iraqi affair simply being overtaken by the larger forces and issues in the Middle East. I believe our presence in Iraq allows us to better deal with these developments in an increasingly dangerous world.
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.

[TeleAl]

[Baaahb]

Sad but true.
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.

[keithermadness]

How's bout this: War is economically wrong if we can't pay as we go. Shoulda had a rainy day fund for fighting terrorism. Its been around for a while. In fact its been around longer than tax cuts for the uppa crust. So in conclusion, if this thing was so damned important [and I'm not going to pick nits over the priorities] then they should have had a plan....any plan....but they didn't. They had Intentions.

We get the bill and the Iraqi's get to put their miserable lives back together...but there is no plan for that either.
_________________
~km

"Everyday is a potential avalanche day."
-Missiongravity

[satsuma]

On the other hand, if the war was clearly practically and morally justified, no one would have a problem with borrowing money to pay for the war, conducted with adequate resources and not on the cheap, and reconstruction.

Clearly, these justifications were marginal at best. I see it like JL< that Saddam was not a threat, except if one chose only the evidence that supported the opposite case.

The practical difficulties in the occupation were ignored, and I question whether US presence is, any longer, beneficial. To ignore the effect on Iraqi civilians is immoral.

The other thing that disturbs me is that I still see that domestic politics was a strong motivation for this war. Saddam Hussein was a convenient enemy.
_________________
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts" Earl Weaver

[Baaahb]

[satsuma]

No, I don't think it is being completely ignored--it's just not at the top of the list.

When I hear much more talk about "democracy" than safety, I see this as evidence of concern for politics more than people.

Both staying or leaving could be the results of a moral calculation. I just don't see that morality is at the top of the list for this administration. If the administration felt morality was really on the side, it would be more open and do a better job of telling the truth.
_________________
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts" Earl Weaver