"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

Slinging rocks, when you don't know the full story is being
irresponsible. Slinging rocks and finding fault while not offering
workable alternatives is equally irresponsible.

Any moron can blame Bush for everything from the Iraq war, to the
economy, to the spreading of AIDS in Africa. But unless you can
elaborate the steps in which you can realistically correct these
problems, then you have no business weighing in on the situation. As a
manager I once knew said, "we don't need more problems, we need
solutions".

While some seem suprised that things would turn out the way they did, I
have
been consitantly predicting that things would happen pretty much the way
they did.

One could chalk that up to "chicken little" pessimism.

Or an understanding of the issues involved.




Before the war started, while it was still possible to manage costs, I
was
saying that we would have to pay large costs if we marched into a
needless
war. I listed financal costs, requirements for long term comitments,
loss
of life, failure of the Iraqis to embrace our vision for them, and
possible
myhem while our forces are engaged. Fortunately, the last item has not
come
to pass yet, but it is a very real possibility.

It will be a dark day in American history, when we back our of a just
cause because we're afraid of the costs. The former soviet union lost
the cold war, simply becasue they could not keep up with our technology,
from a finacial standpoint. They couldn't afford the war any more.

War is not cheap, war is not pretty, war in not fun. But sometimes war
is necessary. I believe that now is one of those times. The terrorists
belive (as you do evidently) that Americans will not go the long road,
becasue of financial worries. All they have to do to win this war, is to
outlast our resolve. Should we prove them right? What would the effect
of that do to our security in the long run?

snip
So which is it? In one breath you acknowledge that it is possible to
bankrupt a country on a fools errand, in the next you say that we should pay
any price to win.

You claim the war is necessary - why? You compare the roles Hitler and
Saddam. In one case we had German boots all over Europe and north Africa, in
the other we had Iraqi boots in - Iraq. The job of containment was completed
in '91 and no further warfare is needed. Even you must see that the claims
that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true. That leave the claim that
we are bringing our values to the middle east. We have had a bit longer to
work in Afghanistan and I am having trouble seeing how that is working out
in our favor.

You are still claiming that Iraq is somehow related to the terrorists in a
meaningful way. If a connection, however slim is justification for dropping
80 billion a year, then the much stronger evidence in Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia is surly going to need a response. Think through what the outcome
will be from tackling the biggest energy suppler and a nuclear armed nation.
It is stretching our military to deal with two relatively insignificant
players.

Trying to change attitudes at the barrel of a gun are not working in the
tiny west bank - what could possible make you think it is going to work out
better elsewhere?

Pretend for a moment that you were actually a fiscal conservative and tell
me what we are getting for our 80 billion dollars a year? While you are
thinking this through, do remember that it *is* possible to spend a country
into ruin. As you noted, a country can be so enamored with its ideological
aspirations that it ignore economic realities.

Mark Browne