Guys I did not want to start an argument, I truly don't like what this president has done. I thought his father was a trustworthy and honest man but, I can not say the same for his son. Leatherneck I see a young man on your screen, my son is 15 an it scares me to death that one day he may have to go fight and die not for his country but, for someone elses. Again if I have upset anybody I apologize

 

You certainly have not upset me. I certainly respect folks right to have differing opinions on this and every other issue. I actually have two sons, one 18 and one 15. If my sons choose to serve, I'll be proud as all get out (my father was also a Marine)and just as scared for their lives. But I will try my best to rationalize that many, many more young men get killed drinking and driving each year than die while serving their country. And that will be true whether its in a war that I support or a war that I oppose. The biggest difference is one cause of death is totally stupid and the other is as noble as can be.

I hope you are wrong too:ylsuper:

 

Please don't misinterpret what I'm about to say, as I value all human life very highly, particularly those in uniform, but when you really consider all that has happened in Iraq, the 3,500 or so lives lost is a small number. When you further consider the number of lives lost each year just in routine training (on one Nato training operation that I participated in back in the 80's, we lost almost a hundred Marines). My point is that even if we were not at war and were just doing routine training, my guess is that we would have lost 500 lives in that time span. Finally, while our military has been and is stressed right now, you need to consider (and most people do not) the invaluable experience our young troops are getting by seeing combat. That type of experience will prove invaluable to this country in the next decade. I know that when I was on active duty, a major concern of senior Marine leadership was the lack of combat experience still on active duty. Not a sufficient reason to go to war obviously, but a very strong, tangible benefit of this war that will actually make our military much stronger in the years to come.

Paul Kennedy wrote a book about twenty years ago titled The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. A central tenet of the book is that military power is needed to protect the economic interests of a great power, but when the great power begins to extend itself too far, it begins to sap the strength of the country, leading to eventual decline. This really isn't much different than conservative economic theory that says that excess taxation will retard economic growth. Extending ourselves into very expensive wars that do not serve the direct interests of the US are an example of an overextension that will serve to sap the strength of the US. I'll disagree with you that the war in Iraq hasn't come with a high human toll, but it is the second most expensive US war of modern times in current dollars, even more expensive than Vietnam. In addition, is there any doubt that domestic politics would prevent the US from military action against a real threat today? Short of a direct attack against the US we won't take any military action against Iran or North Korea and the Iranians and Koreans know it. That is a weakening of the United States that is a direct result of our misguided invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, the best that the US can hope for in Iraq is that a somewhat secular strongman will end up in control of Iraq. He will eventually make all of the anti US noises that keep folks in power in that part of the world. That sounds a lot like the status quo ante. I hope he is less of a murderer than Sadaam. The alternatives are a regional war, a theocracy allied with Iran or continued US presence for many years to keep the lid on.

Guys I did not want to start an argument, I truly don't like what this president has done. I thought his father was a trustworthy and honest man but, I can not say the same for his son. Leatherneck I see a young man on your screen, my son is 15 an it scares me to death that one day he may have to go fight and die not for his country but, for someone elses. Again if I have upset anybody I apologize

I'm not upset I just get a bit tired of the party line Bush is evil, Bush lied, Bush"s daughters aren't fighting, etc. FWIW your son won't have to fight unless he choses to. It is a volunteer army.

TA it depends on how you define cost. Of course we're spending more than we did 35-40 years ago. But the economy has grown exponentially. Cost of Iraq as a percent of GNP is 2%, Vietnam was 12% and WWll was 40%. So the drain on our economy is much less than prior wars.

I believe Bush had a large predisposition towards war, especially as a foreign policy after 9/11, but I don't believe Bush lied or forged the intelligence on the weapons in Iraq. I believe it was, in fact, faulty intelligence, and here's why: We didn't find anything. Before the invasion, I was 100% convinced we would find WMDs whether Iraq had them or not. Merely my opinion, which doesn't amount to much, but that is what I think.

I continue to see this listed derisively as a reason Bush attacked Iraq. Assuming for argumentative purposes that it was true, shouldn't we remove dictators that attempt to assassinate our Presidents? If not, why not?

 

Maybe, but at what cost? If removing a dictator can be done covertly and/or orchestrated through opposition groups within his own country, the cost may be minimal. If achieving that end means death and lifetime disability for thousands of Americans and a foreign engagement with no obvious way out, maybe it's just not worth the cost.

As to your last sentence, don't you think it's way too early to determine whether it was or was not in our best interest? Its possible we won't know if it was in our best interest for 30 or more years.

 

We have been engaged militarily in Iraq for longer than our involvement in World War II. And there is no evidence that the tide is turning. I heard a news report yesterday afternoon that the U.S. military was going to take security responsibility back from Iraqi forces in certain provinces that had previously been turned over to them. By June 1942 (7 months after Pearl Harbor), we had turned the Japanese back at Midway and had them on the defensive all the way up until September 1945. We have been involved in this war for over four years, and we are arguably no closer to achieving a stable and peaceful Iraq than we were 3 years ago. And you're suggesting it might take 30 years to determine whether the invasion was in our best interest? That would be laughable if this war's consequences to our nation were not so tragic.

Paul Kennedy wrote a book about twenty years ago titled The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. A central tenet of the book is that military power is needed to protect the economic interests of a great power, but when the great power begins to extend itself too far, it begins to sap the strength of the country, leading to eventual decline. This really isn't much different than conservative economic theory that says that excess taxation will retard economic growth. Extending ourselves into very expensive wars that do not serve the direct interests of the US are an example of an overextension that will serve to sap the strength of the US. I'll disagree with you that the war in Iraq hasn't come with a high human toll, but it is the second most expensive US war of modern times in current dollars, even more expensive than Vietnam. In addition, is there any doubt that domestic politics would prevent the US from military action against a real threat today? Short of a direct attack against the US we won't take any military action against Iran or North Korea and the Iranians and Koreans know it. That is a weakening of the United States that is a direct result of our misguided invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, the best that the US can hope for in Iraq is that a somewhat secular strongman will end up in control of Iraq. He will eventually make all of the anti US noises that keep folks in power in that part of the world. That sounds a lot like the status quo ante. I hope he is less of a murderer than Sadaam. The alternatives are a regional war, a theocracy allied with Iran or continued US presence for many years to keep the lid on.

 

 

If, as you postulate, our presence in Iraq makes this country unable to respond to anything short of a direct attack, then I think our status as the world's military superpower is a joke and we are a paper tiger; and perhaps we all have a lot of soul searching to do. We can have all the fancy technology and missiles and planes, but at the end of the day, it takes guts and courage from men and women on the ground to win a war. If our country has been weakened to the extent you believe it has and won't respond, can't respond, to anything other than a direct attack, such is more of an indictment on the people of this country than it is on any decision made by President Bush.

We have been engaged militarily in Iraq for longer than our involvement in World War II. And there is no evidence that the tide is turning. I heard a news report yesterday afternoon that the U.S. military was going to take security responsibility back from Iraqi forces in certain provinces that had previously been turned over to them. By June 1942 (7 months after Pearl Harbor), we had turned the Japanese back at Midway and had them on the defensive all the way up until September 1945. We have been involved in this war for over four years, and we are arguably no closer to achieving a stable and peaceful Iraq than we were 3 years ago. And you're suggesting it might take 30 years to determine whether the invasion was in our best interest? That would be laughable if this war's consequences to our nation were not so tragic.

 

 

Thank you for the insult in the last sentence. Frankly, not surprised.

 

As to the timing of WWII vs Iraq; I'd compare the invasion part of Iraq quite favorably with invasion part of WWII. As for the occupation part, perhaps if in this day and age society still had the guts or whatever you want to call it to permit a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Iraq, then the occupation phase would go as quickly as it did in Japan. But that will not happen and as a result we are dealing with a completely different situation than what was dealt with in the occupation of Japan.