Now with the latest developments i just wanted to hear some of your thoughts on a possible war with Iraq. I think we dont need to rush into this thing, take our time and make sure it gets done right. By going to war we are signing someone's death warant. I'm not opposed to the war just think we need to do it right, limit american casualties. Please post your thoughts
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
War with Iraq Continued
- Thread starter The Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm, who's death warrant? I flew in support of OEF, and would be proud to fly again in support of any future operations.
As Iron mentioned, UN sactions have been ongoing for 12 years, and now with the realization of the threats that terrorism poses to our country and others in a post 9/11 world, the US and its allies are seeking to ensure (if that is possible, or at least to the maximum extent) that it will not happen again.
Also, if you have been reading the news lately (think you would have to be pretty out of it not to notice), we have 4 carrier battle groups and over 150,000 troops that will be in theater through a staged build up. Shades of 12 years ago. How much more time do you need?
In my capacity as a citizen of the US, I think the President did a good job tonight in his state of the union address to out line the general failures of Iraq to meet the terms of the inspection and comply with the UN sanctions. And then put forth the possible risks of leaving a country out there that sanctions and supports terrorist activities.
Oh well, I don't implement policy by a long shot (lol), and who knows what is going to happen, let alone when, but I know alot of my contemporaries are prepared and willing to do what it takes, wherever the President needs us to go.
That's why we're here, right? To support and defend? I am willing to go out on a limb here and say that it is definately time to defend. It is hard to say that a preemptive strike is the right thing, because you never know what is going to happen in the future, BUT I think we are pretty safe in fortelling that "Sodamn Insane" is brutal enough, and capaable enough to cause a lot of suffering on a very large scale. His job with the UN inspectors, like the President said, is to prove otherwise, and he hasn't done it. I'm not a policy maker either, but I know something will have to be done soon whether we like it or not. War sucks, but it has to be done. I believe the timing will be right when the president says it is.
We shouldn't be in a hurry to start a war. There's only one perfect outcome. It goes something like this.
We invade Iraq. We find massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons because our victory has been so quick and decisive that Saddam Hussein doesn't have the opportunity to deploy them against us or his own people, so as a result, we suffer casualties that number a handful, not hundreds (or thousands). We beat this fact over the head of the international community (more precisely, the French and Germans), silencing our fiercest critics.
We take Baghdad and find Saddam dead, killed by his own generals, creating a power vacuum easily filled by us. We avoid massive civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are so happy they throw our troops a ticker tape parade instead of snipering them from their windows or denonating human bombers trying to kill American soldiers.
We capture the Iraqi oil fields before Saddam is able to set them on fire, thus avoiding a massive environmental and economic catastrophe. We use the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil to pay for our war and flood the world market with oil so cheap that Americans enters a new economic golden age and a new fashion arises: Americans replace their SUVs with civilian battle tanks (imagine, the GMC M1, seats a family of 10 in luxury and gets two miles a gallon).
We capture a wealth of documents that show not only that the Iraqis have links to Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, but also to the FARC in Colombia, the IRA, the boogie man and those people who make reality TV shows.
We are also able to set up a democratic regime that doesn't require a large, expensive American force to prop it up and keep it in power.
Finally, when we do leave the region, the lack of an American force in the area doesn't result in civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide by the different ethnic groups that make up Iraq fighting for control of the country, and our efforts to change the Iraqi regime doesn't radicalize the Middle East, increasing terrorist recruitments and creating more terrorist groups that are bent on the destruction of the USA.
This could happen. If we are lucky.
I write this not in the defense of Saddam Hussein (not a person even Perry Mason could defend), but to point out this war will probably be nothing like the original Gulf War. It could be very ugly. Victory might not be swift. It could have long-term consequences that we might not like or be prepared to shoulder.
We should also be prepared to examine our motivations. Is it the liberation of the Iraqi people? Or is it to secure Middle East oil and support America's excessive consumption of cheap gasoline? In the end, we better be prepared to know why we are fighting and accept that the status quo may be a better alternative than a war that the American people might not have the stomach for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
We invade Iraq. We find massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons because our victory has been so quick and decisive that Saddam Hussein doesn't have the opportunity to deploy them against us or his own people, so as a result, we suffer casualties that number a handful, not hundreds (or thousands). We beat this fact over the head of the international community (more precisely, the French and Germans), silencing our fiercest critics.
We take Baghdad and find Saddam dead, killed by his own generals, creating a power vacuum easily filled by us. We avoid massive civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are so happy they throw our troops a ticker tape parade instead of snipering them from their windows or denonating human bombers trying to kill American soldiers.
We capture the Iraqi oil fields before Saddam is able to set them on fire, thus avoiding a massive environmental and economic catastrophe. We use the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil to pay for our war and flood the world market with oil so cheap that Americans enters a new economic golden age and a new fashion arises: Americans replace their SUVs with civilian battle tanks (imagine, the GMC M1, seats a family of 10 in luxury and gets two miles a gallon).
We capture a wealth of documents that show not only that the Iraqis have links to Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, but also to the FARC in Colombia, the IRA, the boogie man and those people who make reality TV shows.
We are also able to set up a democratic regime that doesn't require a large, expensive American force to prop it up and keep it in power.
Finally, when we do leave the region, the lack of an American force in the area doesn't result in civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide by the different ethnic groups that make up Iraq fighting for control of the country, and our efforts to change the Iraqi regime doesn't radicalize the Middle East, increasing terrorist recruitments and creating more terrorist groups that are bent on the destruction of the USA.
This could happen. If we are lucky.
I write this not in the defense of Saddam Hussein (not a person even Perry Mason could defend), but to point out this war will probably be nothing like the original Gulf War. It could be very ugly. Victory might not be swift. It could have long-term consequences that we might not like or be prepared to shoulder.
We should also be prepared to examine our motivations. Is it the liberation of the Iraqi people? Or is it to secure Middle East oil and support America's excessive consumption of cheap gasoline? In the end, we better be prepared to know why we are fighting and accept that the status quo may be a better alternative than a war that the American people might not have the stomach for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
Hi Everyone,
I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents over this....
I studied a lot on Middle Eastern politics in college and in all honesty, I have doubts about ousting Saddam. He is a bad guy, there's NO question about that!!!
However, what happens when he's out??
We've generally been able to control him, and he makes threats that his military cannot really back up for him - yes, I know terrorists can though :-(. There's also the issue of a resulting power vaccuum in the Middle East - what if the next guy is worse and does more than just use empty words?
I just think we need to use a great deal of caution on this one. It's likely fanatics will retaliate if we go through with this and in spite of our governments measures to protect us on the homefront, I'm sure there are groups who can find loopholes out there in our system.
As for those on active duty and reservists, yes, we signed up to protect out country and our freedoms. And part of our job is following orders, regardless of if we agree.
But in the ever increasing global nature of things, we've got to think about the other guy (quitely sitting there waiting to do his thing against us) that is out there.
Just some thoughts.
God Bless,
Robin
I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents over this....
I studied a lot on Middle Eastern politics in college and in all honesty, I have doubts about ousting Saddam. He is a bad guy, there's NO question about that!!!
We've generally been able to control him, and he makes threats that his military cannot really back up for him - yes, I know terrorists can though :-(. There's also the issue of a resulting power vaccuum in the Middle East - what if the next guy is worse and does more than just use empty words?
I just think we need to use a great deal of caution on this one. It's likely fanatics will retaliate if we go through with this and in spite of our governments measures to protect us on the homefront, I'm sure there are groups who can find loopholes out there in our system.
As for those on active duty and reservists, yes, we signed up to protect out country and our freedoms. And part of our job is following orders, regardless of if we agree.
But in the ever increasing global nature of things, we've got to think about the other guy (quitely sitting there waiting to do his thing against us) that is out there.
Just some thoughts.
God Bless,
Robin
Although I am totally convinced that Saddam must be ejected from power, there are many issues and scenarios that play in my mind much like you who posted here. When thinking of another gulf war, my concern is not whether or not our military is capable of getting the job done. I know hands down that our military can. But how will our leaders convince the world that this is the only option without further damaging the image of America being the land of justice, fairness, and goodwill? Also, how will we be able to fund these wars at our economic state? Are we assuming that the Iraqi oil will pay for it?
How will we be able to win the world popularity contest if we do this? Will we be still seen as the nation of good will and justice? Or will the emerging EU who constantly criticizes our foreign policy (Fr+Grmy) take the title away from us? After all, it is popularity that prevails in the end. Benevolence allows a nation to secure allies and subjugate adversaries without even fighting, which is the true pinnacle of excellence (SUN-TZU).
Perhaps such conflicts can be the beginnings of an America depleting her resources fighting shadowy nations and endless abstract asymmetrical wars. What will happen when her true match rises to power and challenges her sovereignty? Will our nation be prepared? Most likely no nation will ever rise against us head on. But these wars can prove costly in the long run not only economically, but politically, diplomatically and militaristically. Not to mention that war can shift global popular opinion against us as well.
I’m sure the lure of that black gold within is tantalizing to a nation by which it is its very lifeline. Since the isolated hermit kingdom does not have any of such black gold, are we affording to look the other way despite their own revelation to the world that their weapons are just as deadly and marketable to nations that have launched terrorist attacks on our military. It seems like a predicament more than a crisis. Are we not able to stomach a two or three-pronged war with these kingdoms that we have singled out as an axis of evil? Why did we single them out if we can't stomach a war with them? Doesn’t this predicament take away from our credible reason that we must eliminate the world of cruel leaders, which produce weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn’t this war also unveil and make greater the rift between us and the EU, Arab nations, and the rest of the world who protest the war?
Since our commander and chief singled out three nations as being an axis of evil, do we follow through what was said and prepare to engage these nations in war proving to the world that when we speak we mean it. Isn’t this the honorable and right thing to do? To make good on our word, and practice what we preach to the bitter end despite the cost?
Again, these are just ponderings and questions that concern me. I support our cause. I support our nation and the president’s address to the State. I am willing to die for our cause. I’m just expressing my thoughts as an individual with rights to express them.
ds
Because the foolishness of God is wiser then men, and the weakness of God is stronger then men.
1 Corithians 1:25
How will we be able to win the world popularity contest if we do this? Will we be still seen as the nation of good will and justice? Or will the emerging EU who constantly criticizes our foreign policy (Fr+Grmy) take the title away from us? After all, it is popularity that prevails in the end. Benevolence allows a nation to secure allies and subjugate adversaries without even fighting, which is the true pinnacle of excellence (SUN-TZU).
Perhaps such conflicts can be the beginnings of an America depleting her resources fighting shadowy nations and endless abstract asymmetrical wars. What will happen when her true match rises to power and challenges her sovereignty? Will our nation be prepared? Most likely no nation will ever rise against us head on. But these wars can prove costly in the long run not only economically, but politically, diplomatically and militaristically. Not to mention that war can shift global popular opinion against us as well.
I’m sure the lure of that black gold within is tantalizing to a nation by which it is its very lifeline. Since the isolated hermit kingdom does not have any of such black gold, are we affording to look the other way despite their own revelation to the world that their weapons are just as deadly and marketable to nations that have launched terrorist attacks on our military. It seems like a predicament more than a crisis. Are we not able to stomach a two or three-pronged war with these kingdoms that we have singled out as an axis of evil? Why did we single them out if we can't stomach a war with them? Doesn’t this predicament take away from our credible reason that we must eliminate the world of cruel leaders, which produce weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn’t this war also unveil and make greater the rift between us and the EU, Arab nations, and the rest of the world who protest the war?
Since our commander and chief singled out three nations as being an axis of evil, do we follow through what was said and prepare to engage these nations in war proving to the world that when we speak we mean it. Isn’t this the honorable and right thing to do? To make good on our word, and practice what we preach to the bitter end despite the cost?
Again, these are just ponderings and questions that concern me. I support our cause. I support our nation and the president’s address to the State. I am willing to die for our cause. I’m just expressing my thoughts as an individual with rights to express them.
ds
Because the foolishness of God is wiser then men, and the weakness of God is stronger then men.
1 Corithians 1:25
My question to the general forum-viewer is this: since when did the image of America abroad outweigh the safety and interests of its own people? There needs to be no convincing of other nations that America is the land of justice, fairness, and goodwill. How others view the US does not affect the virtue possesed by this nation's freedom. I disagree with David that it is popularity that prevails; at least to the extent in war. Whether or not foreign nations "like" the United States is irrelevant. Having the largest economy and most powerful military are dominating factors on the world scale and must be weighed. These politics, though hefty sounding, are inconsequential to why we are against Iraq. The United States government, as any government, is tasked with providing for and proctecting the interests of its citizens. Our support of our allies in peace and war, although noble, are secondary to the needs of ourselves. Some may argue that the 1991 war in the gulf was entirely about oil. That's reason enough. To defend our economic interests abroad are incredibly important.
Now however, it is not our economic interests that matter. If the Iraqi government is a danger to the United States, then action is essential. Diplomacy does not appear to be working. If this continues, then for our interests and our interests alone the US must go to war. If you think that the Al Queda are ones to negotiate with, then I recommend the book "What is so Great about America" written by Dinesh D'Souza.
One last thought: Fighting to the bitter end to preserve freedom, liberty, and our way of life is a luxury, not a cost.
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil... for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practies evil." Romans 13: 3,4
Now however, it is not our economic interests that matter. If the Iraqi government is a danger to the United States, then action is essential. Diplomacy does not appear to be working. If this continues, then for our interests and our interests alone the US must go to war. If you think that the Al Queda are ones to negotiate with, then I recommend the book "What is so Great about America" written by Dinesh D'Souza.
One last thought: Fighting to the bitter end to preserve freedom, liberty, and our way of life is a luxury, not a cost.
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil... for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practies evil." Romans 13: 3,4
Oil is a necessary reason to go to war, however it's not a good reason. Because of loopholes in tax laws, businessmen are able to buy the biggest, gas guzzling SUVs and write off their entire costs in their tax statements. Car companies aren't encourage to make SUVs more fuel efficient because SUVs are exempted from the fuel economy standards cars have to meet. Domestic car companies are encouraged to sell SUVs because of the higher profit margin, having lost the battle for the best selling cars to the likes of the Honda Accord and Toyota Corolla. Regular citizens buy these vehicles despite their low fuel economy because the artifically low price of gasoline doesn't discourage them to do otherwise. The President asks us to defend our interests abroad when we have done nothing to defend are interests domestically. We are more dependent on Middle East oil now then twelve years ago during the first Gulf War. As a result, we have a higher profile in the Middle East than we should.
There's no evidence of this. He may threaten our economic and strategic interests in the Middle East, but no one outside the Bush administration will admit they know of any ties between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. And, the current administration hasn't produced any evidence that those ties are real. Would Saddam attack us outright either directly or through a terrorist proxy? That's debatable, certainly in my opinion unlikely since it would invite swift retaliation from America. There just isn't a good rationale for Saddam to do something like that.
There is a country that is a serious threat. It's North Korea. It's got chemical and biological weapons, possibly nuclear, along with a sizeable army that would shame Saddam. It's within shooting distance of two important allies, Japan and South Korea. There are 37,000 American troops who could be dead within minutes if the North Koreans chose to exercise that option. They've sold weapons technology (Scud missiles to Yemen, nuclear weapons tech to Pakistan, to name two) that are destabilizing the security of other regions of the world. Kim Jong Il (leader of North Korea) is so out of touch with the rest of the world community that he is frighteningly unpredictable. He's broken treaties signed in good faith with the USA. What's the President's answer to Mr. Kim: negotiation.
I still don't believe the Bush administration has made a good case for war. Economic reasons may be legit but highlights our dependence on oil and makes us look corpulent. Self defense is an even better reason, but the case still hasn't made that Saddam is a threat and when compared to our response to other, more legit threats (Iran, North Korea) makes our build-up in the Middle East look hypocritical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
Everything is relative to each other, and all things come to bare upon each other.
Benevolence promotes peace, and peace brings stability. Our good will has secured allies all over the world. We trade with our allies producing economic growth and unsurpassed wealth. Our Economic prowess is synonymous with our military prowess. When we fray ties due to our need for consumption, it reflects badly on us as a whole leading other nations to loose confidence in us. It may compromise the bonds that once brought the world to us, and helped build this great nation. By saying "Some may argue that the 1991 war in the gulf was entirely about oil. That's reason enough." it is legitimizing the idea that it is okay to wage war against a nation to quench our insatiable thirsts. This is very rash, impulsive and primal, which is not reflective of a great nation with great responsibilities.
While others like the EU and China look internally for answers, we’re looking outward. Iraq is our starting point, and they had 12 years to ponder, plan, gnash their teeth in bitterness and contemplate a response to the whipping that we dealt them. A war with Iraq today is a lot different then 12 years ago when they were too busy raping Kuwait then to be concerned with a U.S. invasion. I may be overestimating them, but it’s better to overestimate than to underestimate. No one would have ever imagined a couple of years ago that 18 men with box cutters could cause such devastation. We’ve overestimated the abilities of our hi-tech defenses, and underestimated the adversary.
I am for ousting Saddam. But lets not make the world forget that we have a gentle and compassionate side.
Kmac you are entitled to disagree, and I respect your views. In fact, I think Americans should engage these topics with one another and get fired up about it rather than rioting in the streets over a football game. It would add much more demension to our way of seeing the world. This is like a modern day Acropolis.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser then men, and the weakness of God is stronger then men.
1 Corithians 1:25
Benevolence promotes peace, and peace brings stability. Our good will has secured allies all over the world. We trade with our allies producing economic growth and unsurpassed wealth. Our Economic prowess is synonymous with our military prowess. When we fray ties due to our need for consumption, it reflects badly on us as a whole leading other nations to loose confidence in us. It may compromise the bonds that once brought the world to us, and helped build this great nation. By saying "Some may argue that the 1991 war in the gulf was entirely about oil. That's reason enough." it is legitimizing the idea that it is okay to wage war against a nation to quench our insatiable thirsts. This is very rash, impulsive and primal, which is not reflective of a great nation with great responsibilities.
While others like the EU and China look internally for answers, we’re looking outward. Iraq is our starting point, and they had 12 years to ponder, plan, gnash their teeth in bitterness and contemplate a response to the whipping that we dealt them. A war with Iraq today is a lot different then 12 years ago when they were too busy raping Kuwait then to be concerned with a U.S. invasion. I may be overestimating them, but it’s better to overestimate than to underestimate. No one would have ever imagined a couple of years ago that 18 men with box cutters could cause such devastation. We’ve overestimated the abilities of our hi-tech defenses, and underestimated the adversary.
I am for ousting Saddam. But lets not make the world forget that we have a gentle and compassionate side.
Kmac you are entitled to disagree, and I respect your views. In fact, I think Americans should engage these topics with one another and get fired up about it rather than rioting in the streets over a football game. It would add much more demension to our way of seeing the world. This is like a modern day Acropolis.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser then men, and the weakness of God is stronger then men.
1 Corithians 1:25
Good arguments folks!
First, SUVs. If you can afford them, then great, buy one! How is it wrong if you can afford to drive an SUV that you do so. Are we now communist and require everyone to be the same (except of course in the politburo)? Of course gasoline prices are relatively low. It's in America's interest to keep that so. (By the way, Honda is considered a domestic car company) That's why in 1991 when our ally Kuwait (who we get a good amount of oil from) was attacked BY Iraq we went in and liberated them. We both agree that this country is too dependent on foreign oil. That is why openning up reserves when required and new drilling locations are critical before alternative means of producing energy are perfected. Until then, we need to fight overseas when the situation demands it. This is neither primal nor rash. It is a sign of a prospering captialistic and free society. Look at Germany and Japan today. Are these countries better off or worse off with the US's post-war response. Primal, rash, and a bit of cruelty is when one country invades another to completely take control and rule over it. If you're an ally of the US, we can't let that happen to you.
Threat of Hussein. Last time I checked, Saddam was not the most rational individual. The logic that says he would not attack the US in fear of retaliation would reason that he would not invade Kuwait if they had the US as a strong ally. Even after the buildup of our forces, Saddam believed that he could win. He defies the UN no-fly zones and fires at aircraft whenever he gets the chance. Don't believe for a minute that Saddam is a peace-loving individual who wishes to cooperate with the western world.
North Korea. A threat? Yes. Definitely. After all, they're still at war with South Korea. Having big brother China nearby can be both a help and a hindrance. North Korea is not the strong military country of that region. However, they too may be dealt with when the time comes. However destablizing and threatening this country is, so far they have not helped terrorist regimes (to our knowledge).
Ousting Saddam. Can the world have so soon forgotten what we did in Afghanistan? We have liberated the people from a terrorist government. We air-dropped supplies all across the country while we handled the corrupt government. The same will be true if/when we take care of Iraq.
Thanks for the argument guys! Isn't this fun?
First, SUVs. If you can afford them, then great, buy one! How is it wrong if you can afford to drive an SUV that you do so. Are we now communist and require everyone to be the same (except of course in the politburo)? Of course gasoline prices are relatively low. It's in America's interest to keep that so. (By the way, Honda is considered a domestic car company) That's why in 1991 when our ally Kuwait (who we get a good amount of oil from) was attacked BY Iraq we went in and liberated them. We both agree that this country is too dependent on foreign oil. That is why openning up reserves when required and new drilling locations are critical before alternative means of producing energy are perfected. Until then, we need to fight overseas when the situation demands it. This is neither primal nor rash. It is a sign of a prospering captialistic and free society. Look at Germany and Japan today. Are these countries better off or worse off with the US's post-war response. Primal, rash, and a bit of cruelty is when one country invades another to completely take control and rule over it. If you're an ally of the US, we can't let that happen to you.
Threat of Hussein. Last time I checked, Saddam was not the most rational individual. The logic that says he would not attack the US in fear of retaliation would reason that he would not invade Kuwait if they had the US as a strong ally. Even after the buildup of our forces, Saddam believed that he could win. He defies the UN no-fly zones and fires at aircraft whenever he gets the chance. Don't believe for a minute that Saddam is a peace-loving individual who wishes to cooperate with the western world.
North Korea. A threat? Yes. Definitely. After all, they're still at war with South Korea. Having big brother China nearby can be both a help and a hindrance. North Korea is not the strong military country of that region. However, they too may be dealt with when the time comes. However destablizing and threatening this country is, so far they have not helped terrorist regimes (to our knowledge).
Ousting Saddam. Can the world have so soon forgotten what we did in Afghanistan? We have liberated the people from a terrorist government. We air-dropped supplies all across the country while we handled the corrupt government. The same will be true if/when we take care of Iraq.
Thanks for the argument guys! Isn't this fun?
Of course people can afford SUVs, like I said, the government subsidizes their costs. How many times have you seen a small business owner driving a Hummer? Or a Suburban? The only things that these SUVs haul are doughnuts and lattes to the office. The tax write-off that let businesses drive these things (paid for by the American taxpayer) was intended for the small farmer. However, since these monster SUVs fit into the "light truck" category (What does a doctor haul in a Hummer when he makes a house call?) the government basically pimps these things on behalf of the American car companies (with the exception of Land Rover, all three ton SUVs are American, I believe). When the body bags start to come back from Iraq, remember that's this is one of the things our soldiers are fighting for.
Kmac, do you know what communism is? Just saying communism makes your arguments look sympathetic, but you know it's misleading. Driving SUVs has everything to do with capitalism and democracy, not communism.
Here's a little econ lesson. I live in a major metropolitan area. I either walk or take public transportation (subway), with the occasional exception of taking a taxi. As a result, I consume virtually no gasoline in my daily activity.
Your typical SUV driving soccer mom drives everywhere. Her car pollutes. It kills disporportionally (SUVs, contrary to the hype, are more dangerous than cars). More roads and bridges are built so that soccer mom doesn't have to sit in traffic (that would be a tragedy). Resources are consumed to build her SUV, the environment is altered (for the worse) to build the infrastructure she uses to drive and, armed forces are deployed in the Middle East to insure the steady flow of oil to the American refineries that fuel her car. When she buys gas for her SUV she pays taxes for each gallon. But what she pays at the pump in taxes falls short of what it cost society for her to drive.
The burden for that shortfall comes from the general income of the states and federal government. For someone like me, who doesn't drive, some portion of my taxes end up subsidizing her SUV. That's what's called a negative externality.
The solution. Make her pay at the pump the cost to society (including the strategic costs of waging war in Iraq). This would raise gasoline to its TRUE price. The people who can't afford to pay the true price for gasoline will consume less. Those who can't afford to drive SUVs will switch to fuel efficient alternatives (public transport or gasp! cars!). That's capitalism.
Of course, if SUVs were categorized as cars like they should be instead of light trucks, forcing them to meet the fuel economy standards cars must meet, then our country would consume less oil. However, since the powers-that-be don't want that (oil companies and car companies) and make sure people who believe likewise get elected (through political donations) nothing happens. That's democracy.
Honda is an American company? In what world do you live in? Here's a thought experiment. You are in Paris. You go to McDonalds. Everything on the menu is in French. Everyone who works there is French. The food is grown by French farmers. Now is McDonalds a French company? According to your logic it is (I'm sure the French would disagree).
Honda is incorporated in Japan. Its cars are designed there. And the profits that it makes from the sale of its cars return to Japan. It may have factories in America, but that doesn't make it American anymore than having a McDonalds in Paris makes it French.
Is Saddam irrational? No. Out of touch? Yes. I might remind you Kmac, the American public wasn't exactly united on the subject of whether to fight the first Gulf War. The subject was heavily debated in Congress. Had the forces against war won in Congress, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991. You could therefore argue that the Kuwaiti invasion wasn't an irrational move, but a calculated gamble that didn't pay off.
As far as North Korea not helping terrorists regimes, that's debatable. If you recall from my previous posting, I stated that N. Korea sold nuclear tech to the Pakistanis. Its president, General Pervez Musharraf wasn't democratically elected. His government openly backed the Taliban before 9/11. Its government is known to back guerillas in Kashimir. The attack in 2001 on the Indian parliment had Pakistani fingerprints all over it. And to make matters worse, they have nuclear weapons (again, thanks to N. Korea). Pre-9/11, Pakistan looks like a terrorist regime. Post-9/11, of course, they are our allies. So don't pretend that N. Korea isn't dangerous, or hasn't aided terrorist regimes.
As far as liberating Afganistan, we did it to get rid of the Taliban, but not because it was morally right. Before 9/11, the Taliban, backed by Al Qaeda, took control of the country. Did the US do anything? No. In fact, we offered to recognize the Taliban as the legit rulers of Afganistan if they would turn over bin Laden and his lieutenants after 9/11. Where would the Afgan people be now if the Taliban had cooperated? I doubt they would have been "liberated."
Spinning current and past military action as morally right is hypocritical. Sending people to die to support our decadent lifestyle is repugnant.
I won't pretend that fighting for oil isn't important. It is. But what sacrifice has the typical American family made to avoid war? Can you honestly say that America has done anything to wean itself off Middle East oil? Absolutely not. Oil was the driving force for the last Gulf War. It's foolish to think otherwise in a future Gulf War.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
Kmac, do you know what communism is? Just saying communism makes your arguments look sympathetic, but you know it's misleading. Driving SUVs has everything to do with capitalism and democracy, not communism.
Here's a little econ lesson. I live in a major metropolitan area. I either walk or take public transportation (subway), with the occasional exception of taking a taxi. As a result, I consume virtually no gasoline in my daily activity.
Your typical SUV driving soccer mom drives everywhere. Her car pollutes. It kills disporportionally (SUVs, contrary to the hype, are more dangerous than cars). More roads and bridges are built so that soccer mom doesn't have to sit in traffic (that would be a tragedy). Resources are consumed to build her SUV, the environment is altered (for the worse) to build the infrastructure she uses to drive and, armed forces are deployed in the Middle East to insure the steady flow of oil to the American refineries that fuel her car. When she buys gas for her SUV she pays taxes for each gallon. But what she pays at the pump in taxes falls short of what it cost society for her to drive.
The burden for that shortfall comes from the general income of the states and federal government. For someone like me, who doesn't drive, some portion of my taxes end up subsidizing her SUV. That's what's called a negative externality.
The solution. Make her pay at the pump the cost to society (including the strategic costs of waging war in Iraq). This would raise gasoline to its TRUE price. The people who can't afford to pay the true price for gasoline will consume less. Those who can't afford to drive SUVs will switch to fuel efficient alternatives (public transport or gasp! cars!). That's capitalism.
Of course, if SUVs were categorized as cars like they should be instead of light trucks, forcing them to meet the fuel economy standards cars must meet, then our country would consume less oil. However, since the powers-that-be don't want that (oil companies and car companies) and make sure people who believe likewise get elected (through political donations) nothing happens. That's democracy.
Honda is an American company? In what world do you live in? Here's a thought experiment. You are in Paris. You go to McDonalds. Everything on the menu is in French. Everyone who works there is French. The food is grown by French farmers. Now is McDonalds a French company? According to your logic it is (I'm sure the French would disagree).
Honda is incorporated in Japan. Its cars are designed there. And the profits that it makes from the sale of its cars return to Japan. It may have factories in America, but that doesn't make it American anymore than having a McDonalds in Paris makes it French.
Is Saddam irrational? No. Out of touch? Yes. I might remind you Kmac, the American public wasn't exactly united on the subject of whether to fight the first Gulf War. The subject was heavily debated in Congress. Had the forces against war won in Congress, there would have been no Gulf War in 1991. You could therefore argue that the Kuwaiti invasion wasn't an irrational move, but a calculated gamble that didn't pay off.
As far as North Korea not helping terrorists regimes, that's debatable. If you recall from my previous posting, I stated that N. Korea sold nuclear tech to the Pakistanis. Its president, General Pervez Musharraf wasn't democratically elected. His government openly backed the Taliban before 9/11. Its government is known to back guerillas in Kashimir. The attack in 2001 on the Indian parliment had Pakistani fingerprints all over it. And to make matters worse, they have nuclear weapons (again, thanks to N. Korea). Pre-9/11, Pakistan looks like a terrorist regime. Post-9/11, of course, they are our allies. So don't pretend that N. Korea isn't dangerous, or hasn't aided terrorist regimes.
As far as liberating Afganistan, we did it to get rid of the Taliban, but not because it was morally right. Before 9/11, the Taliban, backed by Al Qaeda, took control of the country. Did the US do anything? No. In fact, we offered to recognize the Taliban as the legit rulers of Afganistan if they would turn over bin Laden and his lieutenants after 9/11. Where would the Afgan people be now if the Taliban had cooperated? I doubt they would have been "liberated."
Spinning current and past military action as morally right is hypocritical. Sending people to die to support our decadent lifestyle is repugnant.
I won't pretend that fighting for oil isn't important. It is. But what sacrifice has the typical American family made to avoid war? Can you honestly say that America has done anything to wean itself off Middle East oil? Absolutely not. Oil was the driving force for the last Gulf War. It's foolish to think otherwise in a future Gulf War.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
Lets be careful who we alienate here. The USA is already seen by many people as a spoiled bully. Let's face it, we are spoiled. I believe that Iraq is no more a threat to us than Cuba. The fact is, they are just too visible. On the other hand attacking Iraq could really upset thousands of people who are infinitely less visible than Saddam Hussen, or Osama. Herein lies the problem. If we create enemies, weather they work individually or in cells, we could be in some serious trouble. How many people do you think it would take to blow up an elementary school, or a hospital? Does the name Tim McVeigh ring a bell? Saddam Hussein can not do hese things, but the guy standing next to you at the bookstore can. So we attack Iraq, with minimal collateral damage lets just say dozens or innocent Iraquis die. (Realistically its closer to thousands) Because of this a few sympathisers stateside become fanatics and execute some truly awful atacks on perhaps, our children. You dont have to have ties to al-Quaida to do this. The attacks on September 11th were symbolic. Yes, people died but not as many as could have. Lets not make any more enemies than we already have, or our hearts might really get ripped out if God forbid, there is a next time.
Thanks
jw
Thanks
jw
- Status