Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[WWWTT]

I agree the story sounds made up because of how dumb of a decision it was in the first place. Its funny how the deficit hawks around here pretend this war isn't the cause for America's finical troubles even though in the end it will cost half of America's present debt.

Agreed.

Vietnam was also a pain in the economy.I believe the recession during the early 80's,some claimed there was a link.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I still hope for the best and don't wish for the days when Saddam was in power.

I have read one estimate that approximately 2 000 people died every year under Saddam from 91 to 03.(political unrest)

And that 5 times now die every year since Saddam is now gone.(that would be 10 000/year due to political unrest)

It seems like almost every other day I hear about some mass bombings where at least a dozen people die.

The middle east is something messed up and I think it's best to let them solve their own problems.

I am sure they will evolve to a higher level,but if we force it on them,it's going to come back to haunt us.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Agreed.

Vietnam was also a pain in the economy.I believe the recession during the early 80's,some claimed there was a link.

WWWTT

How was the war a pain in the economy? How did it have anything to do with any recession?

[WWWTT]

The US abondoned billions of dollars in military hardware that had to be replaced at the end,not to mention the cost during.

Military expenditures are unlike most others,espesially infrastructure costs.

Infrastructure expenditures improve the country overall(healthcare,education,clean water,etc,etc)

So therefore military costs do not have the same return.

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

The US abondoned billions of dollars in military hardware that had to be replaced at the end,not to mention the cost during.

Military expenditures are unlike most others,espesially infrastructure costs.

Infrastructure expenditures improve the country overall(healthcare,education,clean water,etc,etc)

So therefore military costs do not have the same return.

WWWTT

Not in a free market economy……….There’s all sorts of money to be made in military expenditures……..The manufactures themselves, shareholders and the employees, from professionals and engineers to union line workers………

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure……….Just as a nuclear Iran may pose a threat in the future…………Or a Nuclear North Korea…….Oh wait, they’ve already threatened a nuclear first strike……….Even during the Cuban missile crisis neither side openly threatened a first strike…….

So what do you propose the US (and allies?) do about that? Strike N.Korea?

The threat should be taken seriously, I think a missile defense system should be enough, along with the realization that the US would/could vaporize N.Korea 5 times over via nuclear subs and other means in the region before any Korean missile could get halfway to Hawaii

Edited March 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

So what do you propose the US (and allies?) do about that? Strike N.Korea?

The threat should be taken seriously, I think a missile defense system should be enough, along with the realization that the US would/could vaporize N.Korea 5 times over via nuclear subs and other means in the region before any Korean missile could get halfway to Hawaii

Obviously we can’t put the North Korean Genie back in the bottle and the only remaining actions are either a first strike, be it nuclear or conventional, to prevent their ability to threaten us or be content to play MAD chicken with a unbalanced regime well hoping BMD would work as advertised if required……….both pretty shitty hands…….

But what we can do is use the North Korean dilemma as a thought exercise on how a nuclear armed Iran would play out……….Now some might find it wise to build a couple of BMD sites along the Eastern seaboard, I (amongst many others) tend to think not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is the more prudent action.

[waldo]

I'm not making any kind of equivalencies; I'm stating facts. I wouldn't try to equate Canada's contribution to the U.S.'s as Canada didn't come close to having what the U.S. had to contribute. Canada did give all that it had to give, however, while pretending otherwise; until contract time came along, that is - then Canada was quite forthcoming regarding its contribution. Try owning that.

is this you... owning it? You admit a minimal involvement on Canada's part... that you wouldn't try to equate it... and then your own personal hubris hits with a comment about, "giving all that it had to give... while pretending otherwise". There was no pretend. There was a proud display that Canada didn't formally join the "willing coalition"... and there was open acknowledgement as to honoring (minimal) pre-existing transfer commitments. As for the contract time reference, MLW member 'punked' and I have already dispatched that regular post-invasion go-to talking point... or are you now going to attempt to claim post 2010 Kurdistan as a part of your post-invasion talking point? You do understand the relationship between Kurdistan and Iraq (proper), right?

and again, is this you... owning it?

.

I would wager that most people who didn't support the war at least have the presence of mind to admit that Saddam being gone is a good thing. Your position regarding that tells me a lot.

and you chose not to read what I wrote... from a balanced perspective. The balance you refuse... to own!

.

That doesn't answer the question, does it? On second thought, perhaps it does.

I answered your question... you didn't answer mine. I gave you a pragmatic response, unlike your dreaming wishful hope - one you're apparently willing to give an unlimited timeframe to occur. How about my question that you refused to answer; again, "Do you think your country, your country's leaders have learned anything from this fiasco?"

.

[waldo]

The history books are already being written, with most coming down in the middle with pros and cons resulting from the Iraq War. The military outcome was never in doubt, but that is never a substitute for longer term political stability. Canada's complicity is also well documented by now, and PM Chretien would have joined the war with a UNSC resolution as well...so much for the poor men, women and children killed before or after the invasion.

ya ya, of course it depends on who's writing that history... who's revisionist slant is attempting to invent a positive Bush legacy. Speaking to a non-existent UNSC resolution has no standing other than to reinforce that self-serving rogue nations don't need them, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

ya ya, of course it depends on who's writing that history... who's revisionist slant is attempting to invent a positive Bush legacy. Speaking to a non-existent UNSC resolution has no standing other than to reinforce that self-serving rogue nations don't need them, right?

Absolutely.....like the 'evil' U.S.A., Canada chooses to use the UN when it wishes and ignore it as well. I'm sure the dead Libyans feel much better about UN blessed bombs compare to the dead Serbs.from Kosovo (no UNSC resolution).

[waldo]

Absolutely.....like the 'evil' U.S.A., Canada chooses to use the UN when it wishes and ignore it as well. I'm sure the dead Libyans feel much better about UN blessed bombs compare to the dead Serbs.from Kosovo (no UNSC resolution).

uhhh... was that one of Clinton's wag-the-dog exercises... it's so hard to keep up with the timing? Of course, let's not forget to emphasize that it was a U.S. led NATO engagement, that included all military branches, not just air-force bombing. And yes, Canada owns 10% of all the bombs dropped. But I'm confused here - are you saying NATO couldn't/didn't establish a legal framework for it's engagement... are you saying that the NATO legal framework didn't work within the confines of existing UN resolution and Charter passages? Are you saying the UNSC didn't have a vote on whether NATO's unilateral use of force, "constituted a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter"? Are you saying Clinton initiated a rogue U.S. led undertaking in Kosovo?

[bush_cheney2004]

uhhh... was that one of Clinton's wag-the-dog exercises... it's so hard to keep up with the timing? Of course, let's not forget to emphasize that it was a U.S. led NATO engagement, that included all military branches, not just air-force bombing. And yes, Canada owns 10% of all the bombs dropped.

That's OK...it was bombing bad guys and hapless bystanders because of a "Responsibility to Protect" and "Human Rights" and guilt about Rwanda.

But I'm confused here - are you saying NATO couldn't/didn't establish a legal framework for it's engagement... are you saying that the NATO legal framework didn't work within the confines of existing UN resolution and Charter passages? Are you saying the UNSC didn't have a vote on whether NATO's unilateral use of force, "constituted a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter"? Are you saying Clinton initiated a rogue U.S. led undertaking in Kosovo?

NATO's Operation Allied Force was not sanctioned by a UNSC resolution. NATO acted outside of the UN Charter framework by self authorizing the military action.

NATO and Canada's complicit role aside, the U.S. realized it could do whatever it pleased in the way of force projection and maturing technical capabilities to do so with impunity. Post Cold War dominance was complete, a lesson not lost on the Bush Cheney Gang.

[waldo]

NATO's Operation Allied Force was not sanctioned by a UNSC resolution. NATO acted outside of the UN Charter framework by self authorizing the military action.

NATO and Canada's complicit role aside, the U.S. realized it could do whatever it pleased in the way of force projection and maturing technical capabilities to do so with impunity. Post Cold War dominance was complete, a lesson not lost on the Bush Cheney Gang.

there are those apologists who insist NATO came in under the broader 1244 resolution... that it, in conjunction with the UNSC not accepting the Russian draft resolution against NATO's unilateral intentions, provided the legal framework. And, yes, please... let's have more of your "force projection" chest-thumping... rogue nations wear it well!

[bush_cheney2004]

there are those apologists who insist NATO came in under the broader 1244 resolution... that it, in conjunction with the UNSC not accepting the Russian draft resolution against NATO's unilateral intentions, provided the legal framework. And, yes, please... let's have more of your "force projection" chest-thumping... rogue nations wear it well!

Each war has its own fan base....and that included Canada in 1999...attacking a sovereign state that was not a "direct or indirect threat" to Canada. So enthusiastic was Canada to kick some Serb ass over "human rights", Chretien overreached by including a ground invasion before consulting with allies. Easy there.... killer Kanucks !!

Getting back to Iraq War anniversary festivities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-qx6fwn8XM&feature=player_embedded

Edited March 21, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[WWWTT]

Not in a free market economy……….There’s all sorts of money to be made in military expenditures……..The manufactures themselves, shareholders and the employees, from professionals and engineers to union line workers………

Wrong again!

Military expenditures add little value or return.

Only when an aggressor is landing on your shores is there any real return.

Simply put,1 billion spent on hospitals or schools or power generation give a way bigger bang for the buck as opposed to 1 billion in fighter jets.

That's why the Soviet Union collapsed!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Obviously we can’t put the North Korean Genie back in the bottle and the only remaining actions are either a first strike, be it nuclear or conventional, to prevent their ability to threaten us or be content to play MAD chicken with a unbalanced regime well hoping BMD would work as advertised if required……….both pretty shitty hands…….

But what we can do is use the North Korean dilemma as a thought exercise on how a nuclear armed Iran would play out……….Now some might find it wise to build a couple of BMD sites along the Eastern seaboard, I (amongst many others) tend to think not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is the more prudent action.

Pakistan has proven your opinion wrong!

Argue with the fact that Pakistan HAS and openly TESTED nucleaar weapons!

WWWTT

[Shady]

The US abondoned billions of dollars in military hardware that had to be replaced at the end,not to mention the cost during.

Military expenditures are unlike most others,espesially infrastructure costs.

Infrastructure expenditures improve the country overall(healthcare,education,clean water,etc,etc)

So therefore military costs do not have the same return.

WWWTT

It was WWII that got America out of the Great Depression.

[WWWTT]

It was WWII that got America out of the Great Depression.

Different mind set all together.

Also the cost of war at the time was less,or perhaps I shoud say the cost of the war machine was less.

Also,there was an incredible loss suffered on all sides.

But an increase in taxes solved everything now didn't it.

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

So what do you propose the US (and allies?) do about that? Strike N.Korea?

The threat should be taken seriously, I think a missile defense system should be enough, along with the realization that the US would/could vaporize N.Korea 5 times over via nuclear subs and other means in the region before any Korean missile could get halfway to Hawaii

Seems the guys with the smallest number of nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. I am sure they are well aware of M.A.D. if they lob one nuke, same goes for Iran. These guys are not idiots, just playing the west for idiots.

How do we make the west spend more money .. oh make a small threat. Kind of like how the US outspent the Russians during the cold war and such which devastated the Russian military after the USSR went away.

[GostHacked]

Different mind set all together.

Also the cost of war at the time was less,or perhaps I shoud say the cost of the war machine was less.

Also,there was an incredible loss suffered on all sides.

But an increase in taxes solved everything now didn't it.

WWWTT

Also if you are looking towards a war to help boost the economy, what kind of state is the state in when that happens?

[Michael Hardner]

It was WWII that got America out of the Great Depression.

I have wondered about the economics of it, too.

It seems to me that what happened is that huge amounts of debt were incurred, but the incomparable growth that followed the war - rebuilding Europe and supplying pent up demand for goods - made it worth it.

But, the boom only makes sense when juxtaposed against the huge material and human losses of the conflict.

[Shady]

Different mind set all together.

Also the cost of war at the time was less,or perhaps I shoud say the cost of the war machine was less.

Also,there was an incredible loss suffered on all sides.

But an increase in taxes solved everything now didn't it.

WWWTT

No the cost wasn't less, not compared to the size of the economy. Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Moonlight Graham]

Obviously we can’t put the North Korean Genie back in the bottle and the only remaining actions are either a first strike, be it nuclear or conventional, to prevent their ability to threaten us or be content to play MAD chicken with a unbalanced regime well hoping BMD would work as advertised if required……….both pretty shitty hands…….

But what we can do is use the North Korean dilemma as a thought exercise on how a nuclear armed Iran would play out……….Now some might find it wise to build a couple of BMD sites along the Eastern seaboard, I (amongst many others) tend to think not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is the more prudent action.

If you were JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis you probably would have supported the Joint Chiefs and called for an invasion/first strike of Cuba, and hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been nuclear vapor (plus many dead Cubans and possible nuclear exchange with the USSR) because Cuba was, unknown to US intelligence, already armed and capable of a nuclear strike and, according to Castro decades later, very willing to use the nukes in such a situation.

It's a crappy situation any way you slice it, but I think the more prudent action is dealing with verbal threats over starting guaranteed warfare. If the US strikes N.Korea it could lead to them deploying the nukes on S.Korea or Japan etc., and re-starting North/South Korean full-blown warfare. Strike Iran and you're opening the possibility of massive warfare in the region. Since 1949, MAD has resulted in zero nuclear strikes.

[WWWTT]

No the cost wasn't less, not compared to the size of the economy. Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.

If you think that taxes didn't have to go up to pay for the war and the loses suffered then it is you that does not know what they are talking about.

And yes the cost per plane,per bomb,per soldier,per ship,etc,etc was far cheaper.

No guided missles,no nuclear weapons,no nuclear subs,etc,etc.

Also the buildings and infrastructure that was destroyed and needed replacing was far cheaper and compared to todays standards required more labour intensive procedures.

I personally believe that there has never been a war on the same scale as either of the great wars is because the cost now would be so astronomical that the war would bankrupt everyone into defeat!

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Moonlight Graham: Since 1949, MAD has resulted in zero nuclear strikes.

Until about 1952, the Soviet Union lacked a viable delivery system. The Tu-4*, while available, didn't have the needed range plus early Soviet A-Bombs were HEAVY. Nor did the later Tu-16 and Mya-4...range-wise. It wasn't until 1954 that the USSR was truly a threat with the introduction of the intercontinental Tu-95 which is still around today.

America, during this period, enjoyed almost a complete nuclear monopoly with the huge B-36 and very capable B-47.

* A B-29 clone.