The Cost of Not Liberating Iraq

Involuntary

To Joe Pilot:

As a reservist, everything you do is voluntary. This is like calling your mortgage payments "involuntary" or your marriage vows "involuntary".

Joe Leatherneck of AK @ Apr 09, 2008 19:22:35 PM

Costs of Containing Iraq

In the months BEFORE 9/11 both Condi Rice and Colin Powell informed the UN that Iraq was indeed contained, including its ambitions toward nuclear weapons. How much was it costing us then, and why would it be different now if the war had not been manufactured?

Dave of UT @ Apr 09, 2008 18:30:24 PM

Right On Tom!

Thank you Tom! Finally someone here based their comments on facts and not ignorant partisanship. Bush never lied, and he was very clear to anyone that listened; "Terrorists and those that support them", "Axis of Evil", "N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq". The problem is that people who didn't listen can still have an opinion, and can still feel entitled to that opinion, and can refuse to base it in reality and/or fact no matter how many Toms try to help them.

Let's also not forget that Democrats voted for this war too. Then, when they needed to distinguish themselves from Bush in the year leading up to the 2004 election they changed their minds, stories, and reasoning. What a bunch of guttless slimeballs. I think it's quite clear they don't care about the public; they care about themselves, their power, and their textbook legacy.

There's also the Oil for Food Scandal that everyone wanted to ignore becuase it cast France, Germany, and Russia's reluctance in a new light? No longer were their motives lilly white. People say Bush lied but can't prove it becuase it isn't true. He cited reports that do in fact exist, and as Tom pointed out everyone believed it too. Frankly I don't know how people can ignore this and go merrily on their way. There is absolutely no accountablity in the Democratic Party. Luckily those inteligence reports were in England and not in the National Archives where Sandy Berger had access to them. Clinton lied, did nothing, and then sent his National Security Adviser to the Archives to destroy documents that did in fact exist and did in fact prove he did nothing.

Then there's also "The Wall", drafted by Jamie Gorelick, #2 in the Clinton Justice Department. The Wall prevented one hand of our inteligence community to tell the other information they had on terrorist suspects. The head of the FBI told the 9-11 Commission this but they did nothing. Why? Becuase Jamie Gorelick was ON the 9-11 Commission.

In 1993 the WTC was bombed and books, articles, and papers written prior to 9/11 tied it all back to Saddam; were they all telling lies too?

kevin of MA @ Apr 09, 2008 18:02:38 PM

Responding to Paul

You are correct. The West has major problems with some people in Islam that would like to create a global Caliphate ruled by Sharia...and that includes the mullahs in Tehran. There are many factions...Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas,...the list goes on...

Although a "purely military based" solution will not be enough to overcome this, it is incumbent that it is part of the solution. Radical Islamists are not going to negotiate, so they must be stopped by force. The other part of the solution is for moderate muslims to speak out and reject those ideologies...as the Sunni Awakening in Iraq has done...and other muslims around the world have begun to do. Unfortunately their numbers are small. All this will take time...hence the other name for "the war on terror"..."The Long War". But to not fight is to only live by the appeasement mentioned by Churchil..."Appeasement is feeding the alligator in the hopes that he will eat you last"

Iraq is a mess...but we have seen significant gains lately...even on the political side...leaving now would allow Iraq to become a failed state and a base for Al Qaeda...as stated repeatedly by bin Ladens deputy Al-Zawhiri. We can argue whether or not the invasion of Iraq made us safer or not...we don't know yet. But allowing it to become "Afghanistan on steriods" would definitely make the U.S. and the West in general far less safe from the radicals.

Tom Karvonen of CA @ Apr 09, 2008 17:55:29 PM

Perspective

We are truly blessed to live in a nation where our political questions are debated with words - however occasionally hotly spoken - than with bullets, as is the custom in other places in the world.

I see everything reasonable about a good debate, but when all is said and done, how many of us truly possess the world knowlegde and experience to play armchair quarterback?

We may rightly have our opinions, but they are just that. And this is why we vote - to see who has the most popular opinion of things.

Andrew of CO @ Apr 09, 2008 17:54:11 PM

Rationalize To The End

It is amazing what lengths the supporters of the Iraq war will go to convince themselves that they are supporting the"right" cause.

WMD, democracy in the Middle East, removing Sadaam, containing Iran, defeating Al Qaeda, the list goes on and on. Now we use more fuzzy math to say that it would have been just as if not more expensive to have done nothing. Funny how none of these revisionist arguements were ever part of the original justification.

To make matters worse, the overly optimistic assumptions of what would happen after Sadaam was removed demonstrate either blind arrogance or utter incompetence - Its probably both.

We have 3 warring factions who don't anything to do with one another. The Sunnis view Shiites as heretics and they will go one fighting each other regardless of US presence. In one fell swoop, we've managed to insert ourselves into a century old blood feud between two warring factions of Islam. Instead of it being their problem to solve, the defenders of the war believe that US military presence is going to bring peace somehow.

Oh by the way, our presence in Iraq now provides the crumbling regime in Tehran a convenient distraction from their growing list of internal problems.

The west has bigger issues with Islam than what is currently going on in Iraq. But the only way that is going to be solved is for Islam to come to terms with what itself and define what it's future going to be. A military based solution imposed by the West is not going to be accepted.

Paul Chiu of CA @ Apr 09, 2008 17:21:42 PM

Really William?

Lies? What lies? Every major intelligence agency in England, Jordan, Russia, and France said the same thing about Iraq before the war. In fact, the Clinton Administration called for regime change in Iraq, and indeed made it law that that would be the goal of US Policy....was Bill Clinton lying too?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

In particular, Iraq's biological program remained a "black hole," as UNSCOM chairman, Ambassador Richard Butler, repeatedly complained. In early 1998, editors and reporters of the New York Times met with Butler, who warned that Iraq had "enough biological material like anthrax or botulin toxin to 'blow away Tel Aviv.'" Days before, President Bill Clinton had warned similarly, "Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores."

So William...I ask you...who lied?

It's unfortunate that blind hatred for our President and blind ideology makes people think history started in 2000. Pay attention...there are many BAD people in the world...Bush isn't one of them.

Tom Karvonen of CA @ Apr 09, 2008 17:18:12 PM

This is one of the most ill conceived and argued columns on the costs of the Iraq War that I have read since the war began. If this kind of nonsense passes for serious analysis we're in real trouble.

Bennet of CA @ Apr 09, 2008 17:17:33 PM