News Is the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[Simon666]

As Palestration alluded to, Iraq is a key geographic area in which we can consolidate our power, and stabilise the middle east...a form of American Imperialism, so to speak.

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and didn't need bases in Iraq. The invasion also destabilizes the region as the Iraqis may choose for a state after Iranian model, the Kurds may want to declare an independant state and invoke the wrath of both Turkey and Syria.

The US is too wimpy to condemn the country that actually harbored these terrorists due to our dependence on Saudi oil so it did the next best thing ...we invaded its neighbor.

And how is that supposed to give a message to either Al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia? Bright theory.

Greece, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Italy after the second world war all had guerilla wars.

Care to inform us about the guerilla war in Turkey? And Greece was an enormous success, till this day the European country that hates America most is not France as portrayed by US media, but Greece, for its role in the bloody civil war and the support for the brutal colonel regime with its concentration camps. November 17 was only recently dismantled, and it seems not entirely judging from the latest bomb explosion at a Athens station. The Olympics may become an explosive event not just because of Al Qaeda.

 

[Njorl]

I imagine the Greeks don't hate us as much as the Serbians do.

It isn't as if there were any "freedom fighters" to support in Greece. The choice was between two extreme evils. It wasn't the likes of the Sandinistas or even Fidel Castro who would have taken over Greece. It was a group of hard-core, mass-murdering Stalinists. Had the US not supported the thugs it did, Greece would look a lot like Albania now. Comparing Greece and Albania, I'd say the war was a success.

The Turkish conflict should have been lumped in with Italy, not Greece. I always heard it lumped in with Greece, but it was not nearly so pervasive or violent. In Turkey, especially after Tito's break took Yugoslavia out of Stalin's influence, the KGB stepped up its efforts at forming grass roots communist campaigns. The CIA responded. Both sides engaged in bribery, intimidation and murder, usually through puppets. It was more large scale, institutionalized terror than guerilla warfare.

Njorl

 

[Simon666]

It isn't as if there were any "freedom fighters" to support in Greece. The choice was between two extreme evils. It wasn't the likes of the Sandinistas or even Fidel Castro who would have taken over Greece. It was a group of hard-core, mass-murdering Stalinists. Had the US not supported the thugs it did, Greece would look a lot like Albania now. Comparing Greece and Albania, I'd say the war was a success.

Says who that they were hardcore mass murdering stalinists? You and your conveniently revised history book?

 

[adrenaline]

The US already had bases in Saudi Arabia and didn't need bases in Iraq. The invasion also destabilizes the region as the Iraqis may choose for a state after Iranian model, the Kurds may want to declare an independant state and invoke the wrath of both Turkey and Syria.


And how is that supposed to give a message to either Al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia? Bright theory.

So answer me this, why are we not punishing Saudi Arabia, a hot bed of civil rights abuses, protector of Idi Amin, and from which most of the 9-11 terrorists came from? My point is, the oil. We castrate ourselves so Bush and his cronies won't go after them.

In case you didn't know, Saudi Arabia is a Sunni government. If we put a sh'ite government in Iraq, it makes a nice counterbalance of power in that region. In that respect, his advisors are not too way off. In addition, there is talk of removing or greatly decreasing the amount of American troops in Saudi Arabia. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/5235245.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp Afterall, the muslims just don't like us in the land of "mecca" and removes a contentious issue for a lot of muslim countries. So now we must find an excuse to entrench ourselves in this region in another manner.

As for our message to Al queda. " Since we could not directly prosecute or deal with them, we force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region." Just reiterating from my previous post.

 

[Simon666]

It is shiite, not shitte. And I knew that, the Saudis wouldn't like it, it is why they, Kuwait and others supported Saddam financially during the Iran Iraq war. But you would also punish yourself with installing an Iranian style state there, and it would most certainly not "counterbalance" it. Countries aren't lab weights on a scale you know. The main reason why Saudi Arabia is left alone is oil indeed and the connections with the Bush family, but that doesn't mean Iraq was attacked in order to punish Saudi Arabia or something like that. On the contrary, it had the nice benefit that the US left the Saudi bases which were always considered undesirable. The US leaving Saudi Arabia was also a major demand of Osama by the way, you'll hear Spain being ostracized for "appeasing terrorists" even if the Iraq war was never popular anyway but you'll hardly hear anything when the US takes a decision that by coincidence is also a major terrorist demand.

 

[adrenaline]

I apologize for my spelling. English is my sixth language and I suck at spelling. (that and my constant state of sleep deprivation, goind on 32 hours). I am only offering my theory and rationelle. There is obviously no right or wrong theory and how the inner workings of Bush's cronies decided on such an ill fated war will be beyond anyone, I think.

I think there is some miscommunication. My posts have been about placing ourselves in a region and controlling it in a way that suits our American imperialism or interests or expansionisitic philosophy etc. rather than a direct punishment and prosecution of Al queda or removing a bad evil person from government. However, one can argue that both were nice "side effects" so to speak and there are those who believe the message has been put across to Al Queda (and those countries that indirectly support them.) Yhis may or may not be the case. Apparrantly, this expansionistic philosophy is one shared by some groups . One of them being the link provided by palestration in post #7.
My main point is...our main goal was not to bring democracy and why has the agenda shifted to embarking on this impossible mission is beyond me. This is what will make the cost of this war a bottomless pit and drain on our economy. We cannot change centuries of thinking in that region especially by a culture that does not welcome us with open arms.

 

[russ_watters]

Robert, next to that easy emotional comment which seems to ventilate frustration ... any real comment about the content?

Emotional or not, its a big issue: foreigners resent our power and we resent their lack of it.

Yes, we do spend too much on defense: because we're footing the bill to police the world.

 

[Njorl]

Says who that they were hardcore mass murdering stalinists? You and your conveniently revised history book?

I don't know that much about it, just what I've heard and read. As I recall, most of the more rational leftists were gone. The Trotskyites, who had split themselves into impotence, and the archeiomarxists were nearly wiped out fighting the Germans. The remnants of the latter actually fought on the right against the left in the ensuing civil war, at least in the beginning. They fought for the right because as soon as the occupation ended, the stalinists sought to unify the left by kidnapping rival leaders, torturing them and assassinating those who still refused to comply. The viciousness of the stalinists toward any kind of moderate leftists is one of the factors that led Britain and the US to so stridently oppose them.

I readily admit to knowing only what I was taught. Do you have a good source on the topic? It has become unfortunately current in the last few weeks, and if you know of any illuminating books, I'd like to read them.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

He also retains shares in a mutual fund which owns shares in Halliburton.

I don't know how it works in Australia, but in the US, anyone with money they want to invest has a mutual fund. I am part owner of 500 of the largest companies in the US.

 

[russ_watters]

"First of all, when has the US ever excelled at guerrilla warfare?" - Adrenaline

Greece, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Italy after the second world war all had guerilla wars. The US won all three.

WWII anyone? The Pacific war was mostly USMC guerilla warfare.

 

[Simon666]

I don't know either but you sounded like every other guy claiming the communists must have been evil simply because they are communists. In Slovenia for example, which was communist, people had it for several years after WWII better than their capitalist Italian counterparts. There were for some time more people going from Italy to Slovenia than in the other direction. There was also no real iron curtain worthy of the name where people were shot trying to cross as in Berlin.

 

[adrenaline]

WWII anyone? The Pacific war was mostly USMC guerilla warfare.

Didn't even think about that one!... but I believe the Japanese didn't embed themselves amongs the civilians in the same manner the Viet congs have done and the Iraquis are doing. I don't think our military has ever been very saavy about fighting this type of warfare when the enemy combatants are interwoven among the civilian populace. However, I may be wrong.

 

[shadowman]

expensive, yes...but

While the war in Iraq is expensive, it is worth it. You cannot put a cost on a human life. and while we have killed Iraqi people, we have not killed nearly as many as Sadam has, and he was their ruler! Getting him out of there at all costs was worth it. with the recent gas attack on the US military, we have proven that they did have the weapons of mass destruction that eryone thought was nonexsistant. Plus, democracy needs to be instituted. Remembe how many people had to be killed to put democracy in place in our own country! So, in short, while it is expensive, it is worth it.

 

[Simon666]

The war against Japan was NOT guerilla warfare. Guerilla: member of an unofficial military group that is trying to change the government by making sudden, unexpected attacks on the official army forces. The Japanese did not launch unexpected attack from the civilian population, the Japanese military AND their population attacked as quite expected.

Further, shadowman, a single shell does NOT prove they had stockpiles as it could have been a dud from the Iran Iraq war, some leftover they had forgotten. The fact that you do consider it as proof demonstrates how desperate the pro war people have become that they parade a single shell around as proof that they were right that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Let me tell you something: if it indicates anything it is that the Iraq war has achieved the exact opposite: any leftover WMD that the Saddam regime may have lost track of, risks of falling into the hands of terrorists. The Bush war has done nothing but increasing terrorism and making the world less safe.

 

[pelastration]

Another cost of the war:
- validated and emboldened the enemies
- shamed friends


By Joshua Hammer, Richard Wolffe and Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5040834/

May 31 issue - The images were searing, and strikingly similar. Last Wednesday afternoon, as a thousand unarmed Palestinian protesters marched toward Israeli troops bulldozing houses at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, two Israeli tank shells and a helicopter missile exploded around them, killing eight people, half of them children. No sooner had the world absorbed pictures of the tragedy—ambulances shrieking through the streets of Rafah, shrapnel-ridden bodies—than news broke of new carnage a few hundred miles away. U.S. Apache helicopters fired on what locals said was a wedding party in an Iraqi village near the Syrian border, killing as many as 45 people. The American military said the target was a nest of insurgents, yet women, a well-known wedding singer and several members of his band were among the victims.

For the Arab world, the twin scenes of occupying armies wreaking havoc were a painful indication of American foreign policy in disarray. "Every day we see these terrible parallels—American tanks facing Iraqis, Israeli tanks facing Palestinians," says Jihad Al Khazen, a columnist and the former editor in chief of Al Hayat, the Arabic-language daily in London. "For peace, for the future of the region, there is a sense among Arabs that everything has been brought to a dead end [by the White House]."

Last year's invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein were supposed to bring prosperity and stability to the Middle East. "The road to Jerusalem," the mantra went, led through Baghdad. Neoconservatives and other hawks within the Bush administration expected that the United States would win respect in the Arab world through a massive show of force, and that Israel would be more comfortable making peace with the Palestinians once Saddam was gone. Instead, the region now seems to be growing more violent—and America's image in the Arab world has been badly tarnished. "Not only have we validated and emboldened our enemies, but we have shamed our friends," says an embittered U.S. State Department official. "Arab moderates who trusted our ideals feel betrayed and abandoned."

 

[pelastration]

Check the update

http://costofwar.com/

 

[Adam]

So what is the USA's foreign debt at the moment?