quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What I was really getting at was you saying it wasn't worth the cost, human or financial. I say that has yet to be determined, and it will probably take many years to really be able to make a confident conclusion. But in any event, human casualties in WWII far outweighed the human losses that we've seen so far in the current war (as articulated by the writer). As far as the financials go, you have a good grip on that department, so figure out the inflation since then and we should have a good apples to apples comparison. I'd say the current one is probably more financially costly if for no other reason than for the fact that our weapons systems are so much more advanced technologically. Energy costs are certainly a lot higher now too.

I'm not arguing that the costs of this war are beyond our means. This is nothing compared to the cost of WW2 or WW1. I'm arguing that the costs of this war today already outweigh the benefits of this war. This isn't a defensive war. This is an offensive war provoked by an attack from a third-party. Not that I'm against all offensive wars, so long as we do it for a really fucking good tangible reason that is worth the money I'm paying and the blood of potentially me and my fellow Americans.

I'm a conservative and I don't believe in nation building. So I don't buy this bullshit of building democracy in the Middle East and providing freedom to other people with expensive wars as means to curb terrorism or whatever 20 years from now. Unless someone poses an imminent threat to our national security or is committing genocide, I'm fine leaving them the fuck alone. Otherwise I might as well jump on the welfare society bandwagon so we can "curb crime" which we might or might not see sometime in the next 20 years or whatever. What I find hard to believe is how many "conservatives" believe in this shit that the Bush administration is selling. Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground" or some other intangible nation building crap? And tell you what, why don't we raise taxes to pay for this shit so we can actually be fiscal conservatives?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This analogy of WWII is another talking point that simply has to go. Please stop comparing Saddam, a crippled little pissant who had no power to do anything outside his country to Hitler, who as we all know was pretty damn close to taking over almost all of Europe and God knows what else after that point.

Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Unless someone poses an imminent threat to our national security or is committing genocide, I'm fine leaving them the fuck alone. Otherwise I might as well jump on the welfare society bandwagon so we can "curb crime" which we might or might not see sometime in the next 20 years or whatever. What I find hard to believe is how many "conservatives" believe in this shit that the Bush administration is selling. Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground" or some other intangible nation building crap? And tell you what, why don't we raise taxes to pay for this shit so we can actually be fiscal conservatives?

What constitutes genocide? Do mass graves and chemical attacks on hundreds of thousands of your own citizens count?

But seriously, in the end I do respect your opinion on this. I do share many of the same concerns, I guess I just put less weight in the concerns and more weight in what I believe the ultimate outcome may bring. I just tend to have a slightly different point-of-view on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Tell me this, why don't we now spend $300 billion in aid to Africa to curb poverty because it's the next "terrorist breeding ground"...

Probably because that would be like pissing in the wind.
When was "Band Aid" again? 20 years ago? Why are we still watching starving people on T.V.??? Where the hell did my donation go and why are they still starving!!??
Don't get me wrong, world philanthropy is a great thing, but there's a line I draw between greif and expectation.
What I mean by that is that if I'm going to shell out my earned money on a consistant basis (a one time donation I see as different), I would expect there would be, at some point, a willingness, or some semblance, of improvement.
Are they actually improving or are they just learning the drop off points really well with better clothes?
It's not that I normally expect anything in return but this? After 20 years???
I'm not going to stop mine you, but a little hope and a light at the end of the tunnel would be nice...

(Sorry to hi-jack Shakka, but that arguement really gets my goat)

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think? Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

+1!

I don't buy into the "Iraq = Vietnam" thing either.
Ranks right up there with "Bush = Hitler" and "No War for Oil" arguements...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it. It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

While I don't think Vietnamn is a good comparison, it's a hell of a lot better than that to WWII!!!

quote:

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight.

Actually, he almost did. In a year he took most of europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Isn't it funny how you can declare something a talking point and be done with it without addressing it.

I did address it:

quote:

Please stop comparing Saddam, a crippled little pissant who had no power to do anything outside his country to Hitler, who as we all know was pretty damn close to taking over almost all of Europe and God knows what else after that point.

And I'll continue to address it further if you wish. You replied to my retort, which obviously entails you know I addressed the issue. So please stop being ignorant of my replies.

quote:

It's an equally relevant comparison if not moreso than all of those happy Dems who want to declare Iraq the next Vietnam, even though it's an even more ludicrous comparison. Dontcha think?

Now you know better than that. You know full well that I have avoided that comparison for obvious reasons. If you want to create a strawman by stating what someone else has said, you're more than welcome to do so. I could just as easily beat up on an asinine Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter point, but considering I don't know whether or not you support that position, my argument wouldn't be very strong against you, would it?

But simply throwing that analogy around to counter the argument of just how shitty things are going there, as well as fail to answer the basic question I posed on what exactly is a measurable, qualitative objectives to encite the "victory" cheer doesn't hold water very well at all.

quote:

Hitler didn't almost take over Europe overnight. It's not like Saddam has never tried to aggressively expand his empire. Kuwait anyone? Lobbing bombs at Israel? Oh yeah, I forgot. That was a long time ago. He's a much nicer guy now.

Did I ever say he was a little sweetheart? Did I ever say that I think we should ignore him altogether? Did I ever say that he hasn't done things eeeeevil in the past?

Then let's stop swatting at ghosts and address each other's points. The issue at hand is the fact that Saddam was NOT a threat by any standards that we know of today. He was well contained, at least that's what Rice, Powell, and Cheney believed:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresi...vp20010916.html

The world is full of eeeevil people, Shakka, and we had a pretty damn good hot pursuit of arguably the most eeevil of them all, the one that actually attacked us. We threw that all away just to go after a fucking weakling that was effectively crippled by our sanctions. There is no excuse for that action, none whatsoever.

And there's no excuse for this Administration to bolster it's bullshit case for Saddam's supposed weaponry, nor is there any fucking excuse for them to tie him to 9/11 or al Qaeda.

And there's really, really, REALLY no fucking excuse for how they completely handwaved away any advice by decorated generals and war veterans who know better on how to handle the post-war situation.

To this very day there isn't enough armour on their vehicles. They didn't have enough troops to protect the explosives now stolen, they don't have enough to secure the borders, they don't have enough to fully secure fucking any hotbeds whatsoever.

But the icing on the cake, of course, is the new Islamic fundamentalist regime we are helping install in his place that is in leagues with another big time problem of ours, Iran.

Speaking of which, they are just months away from a "nukular" weapon, according to the IAEA (who happen to be pretty fucking accurate on things, unlike this Administration). How now brown cow?

But we've been done this road before. Why the rehash?

And wasn't Saddam lobbing those bombs DURING a war? Not to excuse his actions, but let's put it in context here. And IF we're going to take out Saddam, then let's put the blame where it was due: George Bush Sr.

But then again, both Cheney and Bush had a few things to say against nation building:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/cheney-flashback/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conne...828_joel29.html

That is, until they came to power themselves. Why the flip-flop?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r +1! I don't buy into the "Iraq = Vietnam" thing either. Ranks right up there with "Bush = Hitler" and "No War for Oil" arguements...

Nice pom poms there Buffy.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...