Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

[tramper]

Iraq 4 Dumb Questions


(1) what has actually been achieved ?

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

(3) What is the cost ?

(4) What should we do now ?

 

[Tricky]

Iraq 4 Dumb Questions


(1) what has actually been achieved ?

A murderous dictator has been removed and murderous terrorists have stepped in to fill the void. Some of the country's infrastructure has been repaired. The releasing of sanctions has improved the quality of life for many. Everybody hates the US worse than ever.

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

No way in hell.

(3) What is the cost ?

In dollars? Not really possible to tell. A small portion of the billions funneled into this rathole will come back via oil and Halliburton, but much more may be lost resulting from the anti-US backlash.

The most important non-monetary cost (IMO) is the loss of support of many of our allies.

(4) What should we do now ?

That's the toughie. At first I believed that we had to stay there until the bitter end to clean up the mess we had made. Now I begin to wonder if staying there is causing messes faster than we can clean them up. But we will have fiscal responsibilities for many years to come.

 

[Upchurch]

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

What Tricky said.

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

What Tricky said.

(3) What is the cost ?

In the long term, it seems that we've not only lost many of our long-term allied (not perminenetly, I hope) but also much of our credibility and reputation. No country is an island (except Japan, Austrailia, England, and many more) and we can't survive if we aren't conscious of those around us. We've got a lot to make up, it seems.

(4) What should we do now ?

The best we can.

 

[Rob Lister]

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

A Commerical, military, and political platform right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

Depends on your value system. It's pretty difficult to measure unless you use a standardized metric, such as dollars. I'd say it is probably well worth the cost, even pretty cheap, but that's only a gut instinct.

(3) What is the cost ?

ibid

(4) What should we do now ?

Probably pretty much of what was/is planned. It'll work out well (I'm a betting man) in the middle and long term. Short term it will be messy.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Iraq 4 Dumb Questions


(1) what has actually been achieved ?

What Tricky said

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

What Tricky said

(3) What is the cost ?

Billions, almost trillions of dollars. That, and we have alienated many allies.

(4) What should we do now ?

Admit to how much we screwed up to the UN so we can regain our allies trust. Work on replacing troops with UN peacekeepers, so we can "bring our boys and girls home", and aid the UN as much as possible as soon as they are the lead peacekeepers.

 

[Ladewig]

(4) What should we do now ?

Probably pretty much of what was/is planned. It'll work out well (I'm a betting man) in the middle and long term. Short term it will be messy.

Because of the complexity of this issue, I could construct an argument for or against the war and its associated costs. I am sympathtic to both sides. I cannot, however, accept the idea that a plan was in any way involved in this invasion.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

Admit to how much we screwed up to the UN so we can regain our allies trust.

Yea, that'll work.

Work on replacing troops with UN peacekeepers, so we can "bring our boys and girls home", and aid the UN as much as possible as soon as they are the lead peacekeepers.

So I guess you don't want the strife in Iraq to ever end? Putting the UN in charge is like putting tics on your dog. That's just an opinion of mine. I could be wrong. I'm open to dialog as to the UN's past successes at 'peacekeeping'.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

Yea, that'll work.

Are you being sarcastic? (If you are, just please add a next time.


So I guess you don't want the strife in Iraq to ever end? Putting the UN in charge is like putting tics on your dog. That's just an opinion of mine. I could be wrong. I'm open to dialog as to the UN's past successes at 'peacekeeping'.

The UN is an effective at peacekeeping. The reason that I want the UN to take hold of the reigns is simple. I don't want to see US Imperial rule installed in Iraq.

 

[Millionframe]

From a United states citizen’s perspective:

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

A strategic location in the mid-east, grounds for getting oil, removal of a potentially dangerous enemy, and (according to the administration) Democracy has been spread.

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

For the future of the government and country as a whole, its been worth it, for the individual it has not made much of a difference or was not worth it.

(3) What is the cost ?

Lots of money and lives, dignity (depending on who you ask) and a heck of a lot more people hate the US throughout the world.

(4) What should we do now ?

See above for way better ideas than I can come up with.

 

[Peskanov]

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

Imo the target was getting Iraq's oil flowing to occidental lands again. It's still not working, but it will.

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

Still unknown, but probably. Occident needs that oil, and it needs it at the right price. However, strong and persistent guerrilla could damage the oil industry in Iraq.

(3) What is the cost ?

No idea, but I hope the neocons did good maths.

(4) What should we do now ?

I think the US should deal with the Iraqi religious forces. They seem to be Iraq's short-term future, and money has miraculous properties.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

Are you being sarcastic? (If you are, just please add a next time.

Looks like you could see the sarcasm without the .

The UN is an effective at peacekeeping. The reason that I want the UN to take hold of the reigns is simple. I don't want to see US Imperial rule installed in Iraq.

Like I asked: So, you don't want to see the strife in Iraq end? You think the UN is good at peacekeeping? Give me some examples. I'll match you failures for each.


Besides, is 'peacekeeping' what Iraq needs? I don't think so but I'll be happy to read why it is you think so. IMHO, they need a independent government chosen by Iraqis in the manner of Iraqir choosing. That is clearly the Bush plan.

The U.N., as a body, certainly doesn't want that, at least judging from the parts that make the whole.

A 'resolution' of 'condemnation' of Israel is about the only thing they ever seem to agree on. Otherwise, they turn tail and run at even the threat of trouble. Maybe they just like to be like the French.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

A 'resolution' of 'condemnation' of Israel is about the only thing they ever seem to agree on. Otherwise, they turn tail and run at even the threat of trouble. Maybe they just like to be like the French.

Do you know how many reserlutions the UN has passed? do you know aht percentage has involved isreal? hint it's not very big.

As for the french being cowards. They fourt a war aginst my country for over a 100 years ,they manged to conquor most of europe. Cowards they are not.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

Do you know how many reserlutions the UN has passed?

Yes. I remember a double fist-full passed against Saddam.

UN: "You cross this line, we kill you!"

(Saddam crosses line)

(UN redraws line)

UN: "Okay-fine! You cross THIS line we kill you!"

(Saddam crosses line)

(etc, etc, etc)

A resolution is worthless without the will or the might to bring it about. And why should they have such when not having such is so very profitable to so many?

 

[geni]

On the other hand if you look at some of the other things they have done over the years you migh reach a different conclusion. the UK had UN backing for a war in the south atlantic at one point for example.

 

[Rob Lister]

On the other hand if you look at some of the other things they have done over the years you migh reach a different conclusion. the UK had UN backing for a war in the south atlantic at one point for example.

Yes, there is that. My memory is lacking a bit -- it was a few too many years ago -- exactly how many UN 'peacekeeping' troops were sent?

Let's play that a different way. Lets suppose the UN did it rather than the UK. Just for fun.

My bet is they'd still be there. Or they would have run away.

 

[Tricky]

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

A Commerical, military, and political platform right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.

Commercial? That's debatable. Maybe, but I feel McDonalds could have done a better job. Military and Political? Well, we already have Israel, and they like us. I am not sure we will be able to keep any kind of American presence there for any long period of time, unless we are prepared for a constant stream of casualties, not only in Iraq, but in other countries as well (as recent events in Saudi Arabia demonstrate.)

(2) Has it been worth the cost ?

Depends on your value system. It's pretty difficult to measure unless you use a standardized metric, such as dollars. I'd say it is probably well worth the cost, even pretty cheap, but that's only a gut instinct.

Pretty cheap? Your wealth must rival that of Bill Gates if you can call it cheap. If we got every drop of oil money from Iraq, how many years do you think it would take before we recoup the cost? (Hint: I work for a major oil company and the expense so far had more than ten times our annual world-wide budget). And of course, we can't simply steal Iraq's oil, now can we?

By what metric was it cheap? Not dollars, obviously. Worldwide good will? Ability to market our products? Lives? I'm frankly at a loss to see any opportunity for monetary or political profit other than the possibility of selling more of our wonderful weapons to future Saddams.

(4) What should we do now ?

Probably pretty much of what was/is planned. It'll work out well (I'm a betting man) in the middle and long term. Short term it will be messy.

I'm also in the dark about what was/is planned. So far, there has seemed to be a dearth of long-term planning. Yeah, we may be able to put military fortresses there (plain old bases won't work because of the terrorists), but what does that accomplish? Then we will have the ability to throw more money down this rathole and invade more countries? Are we doing a good job of winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world? If you have info on what was/is planned, please elucidate.

Oh, I suppose there is one thing. Everybody is scared of us now. Some might find that to be a good thing, but I can take no pleasure in it. I would rather be respected than feared.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Iraq - 4 Dumb Questions

(1) what has actually been achieved ?

A Commerical, military, and political platform right smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.

You seem to be saying it is all about empire building. From an American point of view, this may be good, but don't be surprised if the rest of the world is not to happy with it.

However, Colin Powell pointed out that when you have an empire, you also own it's problems. All empires in history must end. They cannot sustain themselves over time.

 

[Richard G]

We are killing Americas enemies. Thats was the whole point of the war. Of course, a politician will not come right out and say that.

We will continue to kill our enemies, until there is peace, and no more enemies.

Worth the cost? Freedom isn't free. We will not be slaves to fear because of fundamentalist ragheads. When terrorism ceases, or they are all dead, we will cease. Not until then.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

We are killing Americas enemies. Thats was the whole point of the war. Of course, a politician will not come right out and say that.


Were these "enemies" threatening the USA in any way shape and form... the answer is simple NOPE

We will continue to kill our enemies, until there is peace, and no more enemies.

Isn't that hypocritical? Wouldn't more enemies be created from the process. Remember, we are engaged in an Ideological War mind you. You can't force your viewpoints upon someone else without resistance. The ideology will continue to proliferate and exist.

Worth the cost? Freedom isn't free. We will not be slaves to fear because of fundamentalist ragheads.

Then again, it is the media that is making us believe that we should live under fear in the first place.

 

[Bjorn]

We are killing Americas enemies. Thats was the whole point of the war. Of course, a politician will not come right out and say that.

We will continue to kill our enemies, until there is peace, and no more enemies.

Would you care to define 'enemies'?