"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:AO_7b.419011$uu5.75668@sccrnsc04...


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

Or an understanding of the issues involved.

You win. Dave doesn't read. History books are biased sources of information.

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:37:50 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in
another war.

Apparently not, since Vietnam, depending on how you count them, we have
been involved in 5 wars/invasions, 4-5 proxy wars, a half dozen coups,
numerous bombings (acts of war), and multiple bloody "peace keeping"
missions.

thunder wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:37:50 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

Vietnam is not the end all rationale, for never getting involved in
another war.

Apparently not, since Vietnam, depending on how you count them, we have
been involved in 5 wars/invasions, 4-5 proxy wars, a half dozen coups,
numerous bombings (acts of war), and multiple bloody "peace keeping"
missions.


Until the Gulf War, we had not been involved in a major conflict since
Vietnam. The rest were more of a "police action".

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

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.

True.

The question revolves around the necessity of going to war with Iraq in the
first place.

There is no question that a necessary war must be waged until it is won, or
until we are defeated. There is no question about half measures in survival;
this is a fundamental fact of war. This fact adds a certain gravity in the
consideration of whether to engage in war in the first place.

In this case it is not survival, but war for simply political maneuvering -
not survival.

Once could legitimately make the claim that the rise in terrorism is a
serious threat to the American way of life. True, they are not knocking
down our doors with ships, or pointing nuclear tipped missiles in our
direction, but they are hitting us in areas of opportunity. If they see
success in these tactics, it will only encourage more of the same. So it
IS a matter of survival, when you see it from the bigger picture, and
not just the "Iraq chunk" or the "Afghanistan chunk".


I saw the claimed reasons as not being worth the easily
predictable price. I saw containment and inspection as being cheap and
effective, and achieving our stated goals.

I don't believe that these actions were doing any of that. Saddam was
stung, and he was in a rebuilding phase. The sanctions did little more
than bring poverty and poor medical care to a great number of Iraqi
people (many of whom, as well as some on the left, accused the U.S. of
causing). Meanwhile Saddam raided the cookie jar to fund more trophies
to his ego as well as funding for more weapons research. Inspection was
a joke. The inspectors were only allowed to look where the regime let
them, and after advanced notice allowed them to "clean up" first.


So, what was the case for war?

Iraq is a threat to its neighbors. The first war in Iraq cleared up the
invasion problem, and conclusively demonstrated that the Iraq army was no
threat to a modern military. The only country that seemed to have any fear
of Iraq was Israel, and I don't see the feeble Iraqi army as any threat to
them.

But we only wounded Saddam. We didn't take him out either physically or
politically.


WMDs? While it is clear that you are emotionally invested in finding WMDs to
vindicate a position you are supporting, the fact is that effective weapons
of *mass* destruction takes massive amounts of material.

Actually, it does not. The size of the container which could contain
enough toxin to kill thousands of people, could fit in your briefcase.


To deliver milligrams per person takes tons per square kilometer.

That depends of the rate of dispersion and the point of impact, and the
delivery mechanism.


The effective
production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were looking
for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting
infrastructure.

A mistake IMHO.


Our continued searching with free access to the entire
country has been similarly fruitless.

We have uncovered many questionable pieces of the puzzle, along with
literally miles of supporting documentation.


Until every test-tube sized piece of
land has been dug to the depth of 10 meters you can cling to the claim that
there might be some weapons in hiding, but I have already assumed that if
there were weapons or production factories, my US troopers would have found
them. If some do turn up you can say "I told you so" but I am not holding my
breath on this one.

Much of the "faith" on this postion revolves around the personality of
Saddam Husseain and his past actions. It is inconceivable that someone
with his reputation, would simply tuck his tail and wimper in a corner.
Subterfuge would be more fitting.


Saddam is a despot? The questions about how some despot runs his country are
not limited to Iraq. We have a bunch of others that also have much the same
problems as we are finding in Iraq - I don't hear a lot of rhetoric about
going into these countries to clean up the mess there.

I hear this alot, from you guys on the left. Who are these supposed
"despots" who are ready to launch WMD at neighboring countries (As if
the moral equvilency argument is even valid at all)? It's one thing to
have a dictatorship. It's totally another to have one who has
imperialistic desires.



We need the oil? I would willing to talk about our dependence on foreign
oil, but if this is considered a necessary point for going into war I would
expect related activity here at home.

It's not a cornerstone of the mission. But perhaps, it plays an
important part, explained further on:


Conservation, development of
alternative energy resources, perhaps a serious reexamination of nuclear
power.

These things ARE going on. You just don't hear about it because there
isn't any stellar breakthroughs yet.

If you truly believe in the free market (I do) a 3 dollar a gallon
tax on fuel will focus the forces of the our considerable technology on the
problem.

And at the same time push our (and the rest of the world's) economy into
a serious tailspin. The cost of fuel is the single factor which
permeates almost every aspect of manufacturing and distribution. Raise
those costs significantly, and you will ignite serious inflation.

What economic class of people do you think would be the most affected by
these sharp increases in costs? Are you willing to sacrifice the poor to
lessen our dependance on oil?

I agree that we need an alternative to oil, but crushing our economy to
force increased research is not the answer.


Instead, we get a tax credit on the purchase of the Hummer H2. As
far as getting the oil out of Iraq, we were getting more out of Iraq under
the oil for food program than we are currently getting now.

A temporary condition. It will improve as we get a better handle on the
situation.


So we have a mounting death toll and an 90 billion dollar a year price tag
for what goal? When are we leaving?

When the job is done.



If this turns into the 3000 dead a year
that the Soviets were experiencing in Afghanistan what will be the
justification for staying the course?

How many died in 9/11? If we prevent a few more of those type of
attacks, then I guess we can break even.


You should be able to state the objectives before initiating the conflict.

They have been stated. You guys just don't believe them, and instead
cook up all sorts of wild speculation on what's "actually" happening.


I have yet to hear any evidence
that our leadership has thought of anything beyond killing Saddam.

The war on terrorism is a multifaceted and complex operation. There are
other countries involved, and we will have to deal with them. But we
need a base of operation and a source of oil to cover what happens when
we go after the main terrorists cells.



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.

Certainly you jest? You are not going to trot out the "war creates jobs" out
as a serious reason for going to war?

Not as a reason, but as a beneficial side effect. The aftermath of WW2
happened to be one of the most prosperous times in our post industrial
age. Some may argue that the 50's ushered in the sense of consumerism,
that is the root of what is wrong with the American culture, but that's
fuel for another debate.


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.

It is not. Humor me and state you justification.

Terrorism is a threat to American lives. we need to stop it.


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.

We certainly don't have to go to war to keep our interest up.
We have a tin-pot dictator running a bankrupt country. I don't see much in
the way of a threat.

Key phase: "I don't see much..." That does not mean that there isn't
one.



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.

Nothing.

You say that as if you have absolute knowledge of the situation. Since
you cannot possibly know this, I can only conclude that your comment was
made, not from insight, but from dogma.


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?

Two generation if things work out; this assume that all of the young embrace
what we are teaching, and all of the older folks eventually die off.
From my travels there, I can't possible see that they will every embrace our
values as being wholesome and desirable.

They said the same thing here about black people and homosexuals 40
years ago. What's not desirable about freedom? Give anyone the choice
between following their own path, or being shoved down another by a
dictator, what do you think they would choose?


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?

No, I am making the case that the terrorists are coming from a different
part of the middle east. Saddam does not care about anybody but Saddam.

Terrorist cells have been found in practically all of the countries in
the middle east, including Iraq. You are also assuming that Iraq is the
be-all and end-all of the war on terrorism.

I hate to speculate, without having any facts, but assume for a moment
that we have intentions of going after Saudi Arabia. What would be the
most important things we would need to have, before we commit to such an
undertaking? Then look at Iraq again. Is Bush really a simple minded
idiot, or has his people thought about this chess game several moves
ahead?


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.

Attacking Al Qu'edas enemies certainly is not sending the right message.
Try to keep up, the attacker were middle class Saudis - not Iraqis.

Iraq has had some ties to terrorists. They may not be Al Qaeda, but
they're not the only game in town either. Besides, if my speculation is
close to he real truth, the need for Iraq becomes clear.



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?

And doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing?

It has yet to be proven that we've done anything "wrong".


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?

There are several regions that have much the same problems as the middle
east, and we are blissfully free of entanglement in those situations.

Where? What is the degree of threat to American interests?

The only reasons were are engaged in the middle east is oil and Israel. I
have already stated several times that we need to wean ourselves from oil
anyway, why not now.

Already explained in economic terms.

Israel? Cut off military support. When they have to
deal with the neighbors on a more equal terms, they might actually come to
the peace table with an intention of making a deal.

The only "deal" which would be acceptable to the terrorists, is the
total dismantling of the nation of Israel. Besides, capitulation to
these tactics only validate their effectiveness. That is not the message
you want to send. I'm surprised that you would favor abandoning support
for a friendly nation, which we've enjoyed a relationship with for many
years.

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

Those are all great goals. It is abundantly clear that we are getting any
security or safety out of this. The Saudi terrorists are laughing there
heads off as we speak.

The terrorists are much more than just Saudi's. They encompass many
different countries. They operate outside of any one country's blessing.
It happened that the 9/11 terrorists were of Saudi descent, but that
doesn't mean that the Saudi government authorized it.


Respect? Was that *our* president that was going back
to the US saying he had bitten off more than he could chew?

If we pull this off, terrorists will think a little harder before
attacking us. If we can stamp out this cancer on humanity, it will make
those considering terrorism as a career path, to think again. That is
respect.


Lets see how much the Afghanis and Iraqis are able to determine about their
own future. At this point, the situation in Afghanistan looks pretty bleak.
It is too soon to tell in Iraq.

Things are moving along in both places. You have to understand that
Afghanistan was a impoverished country before we even went there. All we
did was to remove an oppressive government. We can give them freedom,
but we can't give them prosperity, if they don't have marketable goods.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


The effective
production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were
looking
for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting
infrastructure.

A mistake IMHO.

Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear
physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business
using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the
inspectors. Do you randomly walk into pharmaceutical factories and comment
on the work being done?

But what the heck - just for entertainment, how about telling us how you
think the inspectors should've been doing their job differently? Try and cut
down on the use of commas. ¿It causes, headaches?

Tu amigo,
Doug

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


The effective
production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were
looking
for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary supporting
infrastructure.

A mistake IMHO.

Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a nuclear
physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no business
using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the
inspectors.

I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a
politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business
criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in
your corner.....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


The effective
production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were
looking
for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary
supporting
infrastructure.

A mistake IMHO.

Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a
nuclear
physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no
business
using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the
inspectors.

I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a
politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business
criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in
your corner.....

Dave

If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour
or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons
inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


The effective
production takes large volumes of precursors. The inspectors were
looking
for the tracks of production, and not finding the necessary
supporting
infrastructure.

A mistake IMHO.

Humble opinion, indeed. Since you are not a chemist, a biologist, a
nuclear
physicist or a weapons expert of any kind, you have absolutely no
business
using the word "mistake" with regard to the work being done by the
inspectors.

I don't? Then by using your same logic then, since you are not a
politician, a military general, or a diplomat, you have no business
criticising the Bush administration or the war in Iraq. So go sit in
your corner.....

Dave

If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a hour
or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons
inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock.


What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field.
Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies,
what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against
non-american inspectors?

You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


If you were tied to a chair under a hot light and tortured for maybe a
hour
or so, the truth would come out: Your only problem with the weapons
inspectors is that many were not Americans. What a crock.


What? What are you smoking now? That really came out of "left" field.
Other than your own biased perceptions and wild speculative tendancies,
what would give you the idea that I have a prejudice against
non-american inspectors?

You just don't like it when your own logic is thrown back at you.

Dave



In the past, you and others have made derisive comments about the
inspectors. This is different than criticising the process itself.