Lebanon vs Sudan

[Walsingham]

Of course not but we need to be far more careful.  We should only interfere in a country when they are not a risk to us when it is possible to do so without the lost of lives.  Saddam Hussein was contained and he was no threat to the US and he kept order in his own country far better than what Bushie is doing right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you can give me an example of any intervention that doesn't have lives lost as a consenquence in ALL human history then I'll eat something horrible.

[metadigital]

So who'd be the faries? The Russians?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nay, the Danes. "

[Lucius]

Touche ;D

[Judge Hades]

Of course not but we need to be far more careful.  We should only interfere in a country when they are not a risk to us when it is possible to do so without the lost of lives.  Saddam Hussein was contained and he was no threat to the US and he kept order in his own country far better than what Bushie is doing right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you can give me an example of any intervention that doesn't have lives lost as a consenquence in ALL human history then I'll eat something horrible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, I should have said keeping the loss of life at a minimum. In any case Bush majorly messed things up when he had our soldiers invade Iraq and he is clearly messing things up now by supporting Israel.

[Dark_Raven]

So who'd be the faries? The Russians?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French by far.

[Dark_Raven]

Of course not but we need to be far more careful.  We should only interfere in a country when they are not a risk to us when it is possible to do so without the lost of lives.  Saddam Hussein was contained and he was no threat to the US and he kept order in his own country far better than what Bushie is doing right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you can give me an example of any intervention that doesn't have lives lost as a consenquence in ALL human history then I'll eat something horrible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As bad as Hussein was at least he brought stability to his country and the region. Now we have chaos and terrorist cells running rampant.

[Cantousent]

If you can give me an example of any intervention that doesn't have lives lost as a consenquence in ALL human history then I'll eat something horrible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As bad as Hussein was at least he brought stability to his country and the region. Now we have chaos and terrorist cells running rampant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That argument really only works if you contend that Saddam Hussein didn't work against our interests. Frankly, I can understand and agree with the position that the war in Iraq brought chaos to the region. However, I balk when folks suggest that our interests were served by the status quo. The fact is, Bush the elder really dropped the ball by leaving the situation as it was after the first gulf war.

 

Stability of Hussein's variety is what got us in this mess in the first place. You might not like how Bush the younger handled the mess, but we had a mess. Let's be honest enough to recognize that the situation in Iraq was bad for a long, long time before W took office.

[metadigital]

The fact is, Bush the elder really dropped the ball by leaving the situation as it was after the first gulf war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was under the impression that the reason Bush I didn't follow Stormin' Norman's volitions was because it was completely contrary to the overt instructions of the UN Resolution (and would have lost the backing of all the Arab states, not to mention most of the other nations in the coalition).

 

My recall might be slightly less than 101% correct, however.

[Cantousent]

No, this is true, however he also urged rebellion and then didn't provide any substantial assistance. He dropped the ball in his policy across the board.

[Judge Hades]

Iraq is, from the beginning, a no win situation no matter how it was handled but we would have had a lot less lives lost if we did not invaded the country when we did. No matter how you spin it invading Iraq made things worse.

[Cantousent]

I won't argue that point. The fact is, we won't know what was worse or better. If you think current policy is bad, seek to change it. Railing about past policy doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Our policy regarding Iraq hasn't been effective for the better part of two decades. The war in Iraq is much more costly in terms of material and resources than it is in terms of deaths. I hate the loss of life, but folks act as if you're the anti-Christ if you observe that it has not been been a particularly costly conflict in terms of deaths, but it is an extremely costly conflict in terms of national resources.

 

By the way, I don't try to spin. If I give an opinion, that's my opinion at the time. My opinion right now is that the Iraq war was clearly a political mistake, but it might not be a long term policy mistake. Since I doubt the issue will be clear for another decade or so, there's no real telling. However, I seriously doubt we can have a reasonable discussion on the issue because most folks are firmly set in their opinions.

[Hurlshort]

Iraq death count = 2,109 (in combat)

 

Vietnam death count = 58,209

 

Just a bit of information, I'm not taking a side here.

[Gorth]

Iraq death count = 2,109 (in combat)

 

Vietnam death count = 58,209

 

Just a bit of information, I'm not taking a side here.

It is all about exposure and marketability of the information.

 

In comparison:

 

Number of people killed in the traffic: 44,757

 

(source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm)

 

Yet nobody sings the praise of or raise statues in memory of the brave heroes, the unknown motorists, who goes onto the road every day, risking their lives to keep things running... >_

 

As Cantousent mentioned, try looking at the cost in other things than lives:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...top_2_trillion/

 

Even of the number 2 trillion dollars is a few hundred billions off either way, it's still a lot of money that could have been spent on other things. Even Bill Gates doesn't have that kind of money.

[metadigital]

My opinion right now is that the Iraq war was clearly a political mistake, but it might not be a long term policy mistake.  Since I doubt the issue will be clear for another decade or so, there's no real telling.  However, I seriously doubt we can have a reasonable discussion on the issue because most folks are firmly set in their opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reminds me of something the Chinese consulate was reputed to have said in the last few decades, when asked about wars etc, and specifically the French Revolution, their response was "Still to early to tell."

 

:D

[Judge Hades]

I won't argue that point.  The fact is, we won't know what was worse or better.  If you think current policy is bad, seek to change it.  Railing about past policy doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Sorry, but the events in Iraq seems to be leading to a civil war with the US military smack dab in the middle. I think that is far worse than having a stable Iraq with the UN putting the resources in keeping tabs on Saddam than us trying to referee two sides ready to kill each other and have no wish to coexist.

 

Our policy regarding Iraq hasn't been effective for the better part of two decades.  The war in Iraq is much more costly in terms of material and resources than it is in terms of deaths.  I hate the loss of life, but folks act as if you're the anti-Christ if you observe that it has not been been a particularly costly conflict in terms of deaths, but it is an extremely costly conflict in terms of national resources.

 

I had no problems with the poicy on Iraq after the first gulf war. The threat was contained and Saddam was no threat to the US.

 

By the way, I don't try to spin.  If I give an opinion, that's my opinion at the time.  My opinion right now is that the Iraq war was clearly a political mistake, but it might not be a long term policy mistake.  Since I doubt the issue will be clear for another decade or so, there's no real telling.  However, I seriously doubt we can have a reasonable discussion on the issue because most folks are firmly set in their opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't particularly care about the long term. I care about our resource, money and manpower, being sucked in a vaccuum in which we had bo place being at. I wouldn't shed a tear if we pull out completely right now and set up containment on the borders and let the Iraqis have their internal war with each other.

[Walsingham]

I don't particularly care about the long term.  I care about our resource, money and manpower, being sucked in a vaccuum in which we had bo place being at.  I wouldn't shed a tear if we pull out completely right now and set up containment on the borders and let the Iraqis have their internal war with each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No tears for, say a ten year civil war with millions dead? I sincerely hope you don't mean that. Or, if you do I'm going to have you sent to observe it in person.

[Lucius]

Is that to say you shred tears for every mass murdering conflict on the planet Wals?

[Walsingham]

Is that to say you shred tears for every mass murdering conflict on the planet Wals?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would if I'd precipitated the damn things.

 

EDIT: On reflection this is logically inconsistent. I rather suspect that if I precipitated them I would have a bit less compassion than I do.

[Lucius]

Please remember that you're not always talking to native speakers, I have no idea what your edit meant.

[Cantousent]

You're still not understanding the point, Hades. This isn't just a matter of questionable logic on your part. That's all well and good.

 

Instead of just saying you hate Bush and he's caused world war three or whatever folks like you do, say that you hate Bush and his policies will cause world war three if we don't change them.

 

Hate Bush a little less, or at least with a little less exuberance, and suggest changes. I understand you'd like to remove our troops, but that seems secondary to attacking the current administration.

 

BTW: Focusing on atacking the current administration rather than suggesting viable alternatives is what cost the opposition the last election. This isn't just idle. Somewhat fewer theatrics and more reasoned debate would serve everyone well in this regard.

[metadigital]

I don't particularly care about the long term.  I care about our resource, money and manpower, being sucked in a vaccuum in which we had bo place being at.  I wouldn't shed a tear if we pull out completely right now and set up containment on the borders and let the Iraqis have their internal war with each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if you don't care about the longterm, then whatever you do in the shortterm is potentially in jeopardy, in the longterm.

 

I'm not so concerned about the cost of the war; seems to be a useful sink for the countless dollars used by the US on their military budget, and it has the advantage of (perhaps) securing longterm energy security.

 

Afghanistan should be lesson enough that a power vacuum can lead to serious problems for civilians well inside the national borders of the US (which, if I'm not mistaken, you do care about).

[Judge Hades]

There are many things why I hate Bush and the only real solution is not vote Republican and make sure the Republicans never get in a position of power again. We need to act responsibly and place our own people first. Let the Iraqis take care of themselves and if they can't that is their problem, not ours. If our resources weren't tied up in Iraq we would have more resources to handle natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

 

Also I don't see securing oil a long term investment. The oil will run out. What we need to focus more on is the research on renewable energy and the elimination on the need of foriegn oil. If we were no longer dependent on the Middle East for energy the US would be so much better off.

 

As for Afghanistan, the problems arising there is because we split our forces and invaded Iraq. If we "stayed the course" in Afghanistan and focused on Al Qaeda we wouldn't be in the mess we are now in that country but Bushie decided to push into Iraq which has proven to be a very stupid thing to do.

[metadigital]

I was referring to the pre-invasion of Afghanistan: 9/11. The reason that it was necessary to go and give the Taliban an attitude adjustment.

[Judge Hades]

Oh yes, indeed. Then again we did train Osama Bin Ladin and pretty much put him in power in Afghanistan. Ultimately, 9/11 was our own damn fault.

[Cantousent]

Well, then, let's just admit that, under your vision, doing anything or nothing will likely be a mistake.

 

There's where you still haven't seen my point. You can't rely on hating Bush. BTW: saying, "don't vote for Bush" amounts to the same thing.

 

What would you do, Hades? What is the better way? There are countless things Bush isn't doing. Should we resort to nuclear weapons? After all, Bush isn't using nukes right now.

 

Don't say we should do what Bush isn't doing. It's a silly argument. Say what you think we should do. Of course, that's a big chance, because the second you stop hating Bush and start coming up with you own policy, you'll be open to attack. That's how politics work.