I don't have the answers, I hardly know the questions to ask, but let me start out by asking a few.How much does it cost to wage a war ? How much does it cost to rebuild and ocupy a country after a war is over? How much are the lives of our service men and all the innocent peoples that will be killed or left homeless worth? And even after we "win" this war the world will hate us even more than it does now. Terrorists will be more popular than ever. Why don't we take all the money and resorces and effort and time and lives, and try to help these depresed countrys to become our equal in there standard of life?If we would give them food and clothing etc,etc, help them to help themselves so to speek, then maybe, just maybe, they would overthrow there dictators and straighten out there own messes ======== I don't know, maybe not. We did it with the american indian and that didnt work.
Take the money and back a specific regime? That's what got us into this mess. We have been handing blank checks to these folks as long as I can remember. You ask about the cost of waging war. I believe that this war is eminent in many ways, so why not do it in 2002 dollars verses 2007 dollars. Terrorists are only popular with other terrorists, according to everyone that has them residing within their countries. I say start the clock of healing after the war is over. To sit now will do nothing more than continue to provide fodder for more hatred. There will be bolder more aggressive actions taken as we sit and continue to posture. The hatred is there. The genie ain't going back in that bottle. Hitler gain strength and power as we sat and watched. We claimed that he was no harm for us. As he invaded his neighbors we again watched and took the passive roll. I don't want to repeat that war, if any. You say we should improve these countries. Do you suggest we start with the infrastructures and roads? I'd love to hear your explanation to the American Taxpayer as to why they should replace roads, homes and businesses in Iraq rather than help with medicine, health care, and children's affairs at home. Is that what you'd propose I say?
Isn't this precisely what Bush is proposing we do? As I understand it, projections for his war are running in the neighborhood of $100 million a day. It makes one wonder at the good that could be done with that kind of money - could we cure cancer if we threw $100 million a DAY into research? Utopian of course, but still, when you really think about it....
Nope, $100 million per day would not solve the cancer puzzle. But $100 million a day can cause a lot of war damage. It could also purchase a lot of computers for American school children. $100 million a day could also provide the seed capital for a new way to teach children on these new computers that would also involve fewer teachers. $100 million a day, hmm. I'll bet I could come up with a ton of great uses after the war is over also. The U.S. taxpayer would be happy to help them develop their own IRS the day after the war (I'd even say contribute a one time grant of $100 million to get the ball rolling). They don't believe in taxes? They can call it a country redevelopment fee. And charge everyone there for the cause. Utopia is not an option here. War plan please!
You should be asking what the costs of NOT having a war are. That is the true question here. Many people who know a lot more than anyone on this board have looked at all the facts and figured out the cost/benefit. This includes democrats in congress and leaders in other countries. The issue of whether or not force can be used has already been decided. Its over, accept reality, move on.
i agree with mondo, the afghan model proved to be very succesful, go with whats working, but some improvements do need to be made, i.e we cant have opposition parties committing autracities in hte manner the norhtern alliance did, we need better supervision. oh and i am as corn-fed, yankee, white as they come but i fail to see why that is so relevant.
i dont think so, notice how much the war rhetoric has toned down now that bush has war powers in his pocket. i think the saddam knew the UN wouldnt be as supportive this time, or at the very least he played politics with the UN and dodged and snuck around, so bottom line, he knows he can beat the UN at the game. So, for bush to have any credibility on dealing w/ iraq he needed to have a congressional approval that we will go unilaterally if need be, thereby circumventing saddam's ability to stalemate us or win if it went throught the UN. put another way, speak soflty and carry a big stick, now we have our stick. i think its just relevant to this thread, although it offers no solution, see my next post.
i think improvements in our foreign policy could stem from focussing on what makes us a great nation, our freedoms and helping others gain freedoms, and defending freedoms, this gets lost in such murky global politics, and we forget how much people appreciate and desire simple freedoms, that we take for granted. HERE IS THE MOST REVEALING INSIGHT YOU WILL EVER READ RE: THE WORLD DISLIKING AMERICA (and its 100% free of charge): most of the world lives in poverty and particularly in the middle east they have a warped sense that somehow our riches and economic privliges were attained somehow at their expense, and it is our fault, our "imperialist-capitalistic-oppression" is to blame for their impoverishment. NOBODY posting on this board should disagree with this statement that we know is true: the reason we have the greatest: nation, economy, wealth is because we have the most free econonmy, free markets and purest capitalism in the world, and we work DAMN hard, bottom line! yet when we try and help these impoverished people by introducing free markets and capitalism, people cry that we are "exploiting them" and we are imperialists. PLEASE! we are damned if we do, damned if we dont! bin laden and his murderous supporters are trying to regress the world back centuries to the west vs. the east again; what we really need is quality leadership in the middle east who cares about the people; think of all the midlle east leaders and who comes to mind, saddam, khomeni, ayatollah, qaddafi (spelling is wrong i know), and other tyrants; not exactly the kind of leaders who champion freedom, human rights and help their people. so quality leaders in the middle east is what we need, how do we foster such an enviornment? easier said then done lest we be accusued of an american brand of imperialism, but i think the afghan model foreshadows what nation building of the 21st century might look like. topple your favorite dictator/tyrant, iclude indigenous peoples as the lead force, and set up free elections, while providing peacekeeping forces for ongoing stability. for the most part it HAS worked in afghan, and this should be the blueprint moving forward with some improvements. i.e. we cant allow opposiotion forces to committ autraucities against rival factions, i.e liek the northern alliance. more suppervision is needed with these war by proxies.