 |
| |
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
In an excellent article, Victor David Hanson from the National review answers the Iraq criticism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson072503.asp
Here are the most interesting portions.
1.Tens of thousands of troops deployed in Iraq represent an unacceptable escalating and open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure.
"It was never so simple as staying or leaving — inasmuch as we already had been in Iraq for over a decade in a manner that had saved thousands of Kurds and Shiites. Against the present cost of pacifying Iraq must be set a half-generation and the $20-30 billion already spent to secure two-thirds of the airspace of Iraq. Then there was the costly naval enforcement of the U.N. embargo from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean — as well as years of prior shootings and bombings along the way.
Add another decade's outlay of keeping 10,000 troops in Saudi Arabia — with all the political risks of putting Americans in such a strange place. Consider further the thousands of Americans stationed elsewhere in the Gulf since 1991 to thwart Saddam Hussein. This three-week conflict, in other words, marked the start of the denouement — not the first act — of a long, costly engagement that began in 1991.
If, with the demise of Saddam Hussein — who was the original reason for our aid to his weak and vulnerable neighbors — we can withdraw or at least downsize from places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and the Gulf sheikdoms, then a great deal of the present investment will represent a transfer of expenses rather than an entirely new commitment. Unless we are activating entirely new National Guard units or creating ex nihilo divisions, some percentage of our costs for troops is static and previously budgeted anyway — whether American soldiers are to be fed and housed in Texas or in Baghdad.
The present task has a definable goal — leave with consensual government established in Iraq — whereas the last twelve years really were open-ended and led nowhere."
2. Iraq was a complete distraction from the war against terror.
"[...]Consider the following collateral developments in little over 100 days. There is some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Soon an American military presence in Saudi Arabia will end. We already see a cessation of cash rewards for suicide murderers; the death or arrests of terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and al Qaedists in Kurdistan; probable disruption of Iraqi cash flows to terrorist groups based in Lebanon; Hamas worried in Syria; democratic foment in Iran; and a growing sense that the United States is not something terrorists wish to arouse.[...]"
3. The lack of tangible evidence of weapons of mass destruction undermines the success of the war — and gives powerful ammunition to the Democrats' criticism of Mr. Bush.
"This would be true if there had not been ample reasons presented for going to war — from Saddam's violation of the 1991 accords, his expulsion of U.N. inspectors, his past history of invading and attacking his neighbors, his connection with terrorists, and prior confirmation by the U.N. and the Clinton administration of a continued Iraq WMD program.
[...] If President Clinton once authorized a four-day war because of Saddam's non-compliance with past promises, and no subsequent evidence was adduced that those stockpiles of WMD were in fact recovered or destroyed, then were the Clinton administration and the U.N. wrong, or disingenuous, in their belief that such weapons ever really existed?
And — putting all put aside WMD, curbing terrorism, and concerns over our own security — is saving thousands of Iraqis any less humanitarian than intervening in Liberia?"
4. We have done lasting damage to international alliances and institutions.
"Careful scrutiny reveals just the opposite: the U.N., NATO, the EU, South Korea, and other bodies and nations are reexamining their own, not our, behavior.
The U.N. is not debating leaving the United States or expelling us from the Security Council, but in fact is reviewing its entire constitution: from the exclusion of powerful nations like Japan, Germany, and India from the Security Council to the nature of odious regimes that participate on important commissions — such as that paragon of human rights, Libya.
[...]In short, a new honesty and maturity are the real dividends of American actions."
5. In a drive for global hegemony, America is crafting a new imperialism to rule the world.
"The trendy notion of America as a "hyperpower" is largely an artifact of the aftermath of the Cold War. True, we enjoy unmatched military strength. Sure, we spend more on defense than do the next ten or so nations collectively. But that imbalance is not a reflection of a wish to dominate the globe, but mostly due to the abject collapse of an empire that failed to do precisely that — and the cleanup of the resulting detritus of Soviet interventions and clients, from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq.
In terms of percentages of GNP, we are spending no more on our military budget than we did through most years of the Cold War. Both at home and abroad, the real story is just as often the abandonment, not the construction, of military bases.[...]"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
So what seems to be said is...
quote:
1.Tens of thousands of troops deployed in Iraq represent an unacceptable escalating and open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure. |
Its ok. We're saving money!
quote:
2. Iraq was a complete distraction from the war against terror. |
"democratic foment in Iran" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict
"There is some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict
"the death or arrests of terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and al Qaedists in Kurdistan" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict (note Kurdistan was not under Saddam's control)
quote:
3. The lack of tangible evidence of weapons of mass destruction undermines the success of the war — and gives powerful ammunition to the Democrats' criticism of Mr. Bush |
The American people wont mind (yeah right) and Clinton and the UN did it first (Since when do the conservatives follow Clinton and the UNs lead)
quote:
4. We have done lasting damage to international alliances and institutions. |
They're reexamining their own procedures (as if they can do anything else. They are reexamining themselves to see how best they can attempt to restrain an out of control american juggernaut)
quote:
5. In a drive for global hegemony, America is crafting a new imperialism to rule the world. |
We're not spending that much! We're spending the same as when we had to defend the world. (no explanation given for why spending hasnt decreased now the threat from the Soviet Union no longer exists)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
So what seems to be said is...
Its ok. We're saving money! |
That was not his point. His point was that it is not an "unacceptable escalating and open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure." because our stay in Iraq is temporary whereas the previous containment policy was an open-ended commitment with no results to show for it.
quote:
"democratic foment in Iran" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict |
Prove it! Is it not reasonable to assume that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a tyrant, may have inspired those Iranian who also wish freedom from their tyrant?
quote:
"There is some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict |
Again, prove it! It is well known that Saddam was paying the families of the suicide bombers.
quote:
"the death or arrests of terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and al Qaedists in Kurdistan" - NOTHING to do with the Iraq conflict (note Kurdistan was not under Saddam's control) |
Again prove it! Al Queda had connections with Saddam. Is it not possible that the war allowed us to gain info that led to their capture?
quote:
The American people wont mind (yeah right) and Clinton and the UN did it first (Since when do the conservatives follow Clinton and the UNs lead) |
The point is that Clinton's actions and the UN's actions, prove that the war was justified. If Clinton was telling the truth, and Saddam was the threat he claimed he was, then Bush was justified in toppling the Saddam regime by force.
quote:
We're not spending that much! We're spending the same as when we had to defend the world. (no explanation given for why spending hasnt decreased now the threat from the Soviet Union no longer exists) |
We have to defend the world, cause if we don't, nobody else would or could!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
"The trendy notion of America as a "hyperpower" is largely an artifact of the aftermath of the Cold War. True, we enjoy unmatched military strength. Sure, we spend more on defense than do the next ten or so nations collectively. But that imbalance is not a reflection of a wish to dominate the globe, but mostly due to the abject collapse of an empire that failed to do precisely that — and the cleanup of the resulting detritus of Soviet interventions and clients, from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq.
In terms of percentages of GNP, we are spending no more on our military budget than we did through most years of the Cold War. Both at home and abroad, the real story is just as often the abandonment, not the construction, of military bases.[...]" |
This is bit I consider complete bullshit.
If the Cold War is over, why is the US spending the same amount?
Could it be - to keep the defence corporations the rich fat bastards that they are?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Because the world is just as dangerous as it was during the Cold War. There is a very real threat of rogue states acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
[/SIZE] |
So why doesn't the US spend the money on buying all the WMDs so there aren't any for sale? A lot cheaper - but of course, US industrialists would lose out. Can't have those shareholders reduced to their last sports car, can we?
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
And because, as I said, the US is the only country able and willing to defend the world. |
Defend it from who? Your bombast is meaningless.
If we all defend our own bits, doesn't that make the US defence budgets pointless, except for keeeping the aforementioned fat bastards fat?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
"This would be true if there had not been ample reasons presented for going to war — from Saddam's violation of the 1991 accords, his expulsion of U.N. inspectors, his past history of invading and attacking his neighbors, his connection with terrorists, and prior confirmation by the U.N. and the Clinton administration of a continued Iraq WMD program. |
If I remember correctly, and it was only about six months ago so I should, the only reason for going to war was being shoved down our throats--he was a madman with WoMD. No other reasons were touted near so much as the holy WoMD, for by it thou might convince Americans that war is a good thing; ....
quote:
[...] If President Clinton once authorized a four-day war because of Saddam's non-compliance with past promises, and no subsequent evidence was adduced that those stockpiles of WMD were in fact recovered or destroyed, then were the Clinton administration and the U.N. wrong, or disingenuous, in their belief that such weapons ever really existed? |
Remember? The ultimatum was that Saddam destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction he had; apparently HE DID! Give it up with the trolls already.
quote:
We have to defend the world, cause if we don't, nobody else would or could! |
The idea of America as a hyperpower to guide the world is possibly the most threatening thing humanity has ever faced. NEVER should so much power be concentrated in one entity. It's simple common sense.
As for your actual 'defend the world' argument, i'm terribly sorry, but no one ever elected America as the world's policeman. The only body elected to do that is the United Nations; which, however inefficient it may be, is better than some nightmare juggernaut crashing dictatorships and whatnot at its every whim and fancy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
One of Iraq's neighbours was weak and vulnerable (Kuwait), the rest were not. Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could have easily defeated Iraq. |
Yes...if Iraq started it, I would gladly support a war against the little bastards despite my general rule of "stay out of it"...the Middle East, much as we hate the thought, is terribly concerning for the United States.
But we started it under some "pre emptive" bullshit, so now it's turning into a quagmire where we're losing millions of dollars a day and so far more than a hundred soldiers IIRC...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Then he could have easily proved that. |
Wasn't there videos of his weapons being dismantled? IIRC there was some kind of proof that was tossed aside...well, of course, it's obvious now that they're all gone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
warning: communist != totalitarian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Ditto Al Queda. Is there any country or group of countries (excluding the US) that have the military, financial or political means to fight Al Queda? The answer is a resounding NO.
|
So you're saying the US should go on some kind of world tour to eliminate al Quida or something? Dude, we're talking about a bunch of unshaven guys living in their apartments or caves with a few connections.
(Oh and by the way, wasn't al-Queda in AFGHANISTAN, not Iraq? At the least Iraq was an attempt to blur out the relative failure we've had in Afghanistan.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Are you serious? Many of the WMDs are not for sale. Do you really think that North Korea is going to sale every nuke it makes to us. Of course not! The whole reason, they are making nukes is to have them as a deterrent against the US. They are not going to sale them to us.
|
Are you serious? Bribery and corruption make the world go round. Even teenagers know that much (at least judging teenage behaviour).
A damn sight cheaper than prolonging the arms race, except of course doing that keeps the military corporations well fed.
I'm not dissing the military here - I'm dissing the obscene amounts of money "invested" in the corporations to supply their needs.
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Most countries are not powerful enough to defend themselves against global threats.
For example, Nazi Germany and Japan were a global threat. The other countries did not have the power to stop them. If the US had not acted, then the whole world would have become Nazi. The US had to act.
|
That's a terrible example. The US never declared war on the Axis, it was the other way round.
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Same thing with the Soviet Union. The world did not have the means to stop Communism from overtaking the whole world. The US had to act, or the whole world would have become totalitarian.
|
Review your history books. Learn how often US intervention prevented a Communist takeover in a country by military means.
Answer: with the exception of South Korea (by no means a solo US effort); nil.
Sure, the US used plenty of other means to prevent and suppress Communist takeovers, but direct military intervention was almost never used - and was never used successfully.
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Ditto Al Queda. Is there any country or group of countries (excluding the US) that have the military, financial or political means to fight Al Queda? The answer is a resounding NO. |
Same as the Axis - they delclared war on us (meaning both US and UK) primarily because of military foreces in Saudi Arabia. Withdrawal means some at least of their recruiting argument goes out the window.
You cannot effectively use conventional military forces to defeat irregulars. For that, you need your own irregular non-frontline outfits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower; slightly out of context but a stirring quote nonetheless. (And somewhat relevant to the discussion, at least with the "fat boys staying fat in the arms industry" context.)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-07-2003 19:09
|