Mark Browne wrote:

"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.

There are many sides to the issues. Depending on which one of them is
your primary goal, determines your point of view with respect to the big
picure.






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 out 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.

WW2 created jobs, and those basically pulled us out of the great
depression. So while the government may spend X amount of money, there
is also an associated benefit to manufacturing related jobs, which
support the war effort. A boost to our economy at this time, would not
be an unwelcome thing.

To answer your second point, let me ask you the converse; If we hesitate
to commit to a war due to financial considerations, then what does that
tell the rest of the world (and particularly our enemies) about our
dedication and resolve? What good is having the world's finest military,
if we're afraid to use it?


You claim the war is necessary - why?

That should be plainly obvious to anyone who can see the big picture.

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.

I respectfully disagree. Saddam is like a festering sore, Loose interest
and leave him alone for a little while and he'll bounce back stronger
and more cunning than ever.



Even you must see that the claims
that Saddam could deploy WMDs was simply not true.

I do NOT see that at all. He has diverted money meant for his people
under the UN's oil-for-food program, for his own agenda. He kicked out
weapons inspectors in 1998. He's NEVER allowed unrestricted access for
weapons inspectors to look where they pleased. There is credible
evidence, lab notes, etc, that clearly show that he was still following
the WMD path. The only thing we don't have are the actual weapons. Since
Iraq is a pretty large country, even if you discount any dealings with
other countries like Syria, so they may still be there. If it turns out
that they really are not there, it may just be that we stopped him just
in time. Give it another 2 or three years, and who knows what he might
have done.


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.

Democracy is a new concept to people used to being subjugated. Again,
you are exhibiting that all too American trait of impatience, and
expectations of instant gratification. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Democracy will take a while to install in the middle east. But because
the road is long and difficult, should that be a reason to abandon the
effort?


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.

Again, you're making the case that because the problem is sizable, that
we should not try. Should we allow this terrorist mentality to
proliferate throughout the middle east and other places? Should we send
the message that we are unable to deal with this threat, thereby
emboldening our enemies to become even more aggressive?

Some people can empathize with the plight of such terorists as Hammas,
and the Palistinian people. But comitting horrible acts of violence in
order to affect societal change should never be given any validity,
otherwise the methods will spread to any group of people who feel
disenfranchised for any number of reasons. We have to send the message
that terrorism will not be tolerated, thereby removing it as an option.


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?

So the alternative is to do... Nothing? Give in and let them have their
way? Maybe we should put a large wall around our country and not let
anyone in, and let the rest of the world destroy itself?

You make valid points about the costs etc. But have you thought about
the alternatives? What about the cost of doing nothing? How many 9/11
type acts will it take before we finally do something? Assuming that
there is a point where we really will say "Alright, we've had it" and
set about to do some serious butt-kicking, wouldn't make more sense to
do it earlier rather than later, therby saving innocent American lives?


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?

Security, safety, respect, and the eventual realization by many people,
that the right to self determination should be universal.


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.

And again, had we been so concerned with our finacial situation, that we
failed to enter WWII, what would have been the likely result? Sometimes
true costs are measured in things other than simple dollars and cents.

Dave