The War In Iraq

[RebelWithanAK]

So, Bush has used up our entire volunteer army in Iraq, and spent countless billions of tax dollars that used to go to state subsidies, education, public services and utilities on ensuring that Iraq will never have these things either. Except that the Iraqis don't know when they're beaten, and seem not to mind shooting US soldiers, blowing up pipelines and generally showing how much they appreciate our coming over to visit.

So, now we have troops that were due to come home months ago, and a belligerent UN that literally holds all the aces. So, if they don't give in troops, and it looks like they won't (and who can blame them?), Bush must either (1) compromise and take the political fallout just in time for re-election, (2) pull out and take the political fallout just in time for re-election, or (3) send in new troops.

And I'm of drafting age. Natch.

[Eddie]

whose to say that the UN wont send any troops? If you didn't notice, some of the countries, such as France, have changed their tune to the whole war with Iraq.

Even though there still is fighting here and there, it is fair to say that the war is pretty much won, and only time can fix the problems at hand.

It is only a matter of wanting to share that piece of pie with other countries, in exchange for military support.

So the government must either share the pie, pull in more troops, or save-face by thinking the problem will be dealt with before re-election time.

your #2 doesn't make any sense to me, why pull out and take the political fallout for sake of re-election? That will just show that this war was a big waste of time, money, reputation, and most importantly, life. This will kill his re-election.

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by Eddie@Sep 8 2003, 10:24 PM whose to say that the UN wont send any troops? If you didn't notice, some of the countries, such as France, have changed their tune to the whole war with Iraq. Even though there still is fighting here and there, it is fair to say that the war is pretty much won, and only time can fix the problems at hand. It is only a matter of wanting to share that piece of pie with other countries, in exchange for military support. So the government must either share the pie, pull in more troops, or save-face by thinking the problem will be dealt with before re-election time. your #2 doesn't make any sense to me, why pull out and take the political fallout for sake of re-election? That will just show that this war was a big waste of time, money, reputation, and most importantly, life. This will kill his re-election.

france didn't change it's tune to the whole war with iraq. france, back in 1999, was heavily in favour of doing something about saddam's flagrant disregard to un resolutions. france did not support the invasion of iraq, but it did want something to be done. and when it comes to rebuilding iraq, france is showing the same interest it did; in being a part of aiding the iraq people.

secondly, the war is not pretty much won. the actual offensive battles against iraqs army are over, but jihadis and militant organizations are only starting to surface. if you think this will be over anytime soon, you're deluding yourself.

thirdly, the only "pie" to share is the cost of rebuilding iraq's infrastructure. if the us holds true to it's orginal statements, the "pie" will belong entirely to the iraqis, who will do with it what they see fit.

and you're misinterpreting his #2. he said election fallout. fallout is bad.

[Eddie]

If France stayed true to their word, then they wouldn't have been so outspoken in the first place. The French have proved to be Saddam's largest ally and trader, which is why they were so outspoken to begin with. But now that the U.S holds all the cards, along with the U.K. and those who aided our effort. Those who were so against this war in the first place (France, Germany, Russia) want to regain what they don't have anymore.

The only interest on their minds is profit without sacrifice. This whole war has been about profit, along side sacrifice and rehabilitation. Right now the U.S holds all the cards, then it will be passed up to the Iraqi people. And when that time comes, who do you think they will profit to the most?

And I never said this war will be over any time soon. it's just a fact that major combat has been won. It's only a matter of dealing with the situation before election time which will decide Bush's future.

[indierockboy]

france didn't have a word to stay true to. they greatly objected to the clinton administration withdrawing the weapons inspectors, and then continued to state that something should be done. they did not think an invasion was the solution. but that doesn't mean they're going to turn their back on the rebuilding effort, it just means they wouldn't play a part in the destroying effort.

[RebelWithanAK]

Eddie, I was being facetious - both compromise and retreat will kill his chances for re-election, which is why he'll never do either.

The UN has all the aces, like I said. They don't have to do anything - they can sit and watch America stew in the mess it made itself because it didn't listen to the UN in the first place. They can wait until America has no other choice and then decide things on their own terms. They don't have to listen to Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz because the US is the one pleading, not demanding.

As it is, the Democrats are screaming bloody murder for the first time in a long while what with Bush's new request for $87 billion more for "reparations" in Iraq, which would put our grand total to half a trillion in the hole by the end of the year. Bush's real choice is to charge forward, because any admission that he was wrong would ultimately kill his chances for a political future.

[indierockboy]

but remember rebel, the white house is in a economic win-win right now. if the economy tanks, the republicans can contemn the democrats with thier tax-and-spend policies and roll back social programs. conversely, bush can coast to a second term if it rebounds.

[RebelWithanAK]

What part of 6 trillion deficit, 'jobless recovery' and never-ending costly foreign quagmire implies an economic win-win? Yes, I agree Bush cut taxes because it would force dems' favorite programs to tank, but it's still Bush's government in the White House...

[indierockboy]

in essence, if the economy tanks, the white house can take whatever direction and liberties it pleases in an effort to rebuild the economy.

[Jim]

There's not going to be a draft anytime soon. And besides, as a quote from www.endselectiveservice.org says:

"No one has actually been formally charged since 1986.

In the early 1980s, 21 young men were indicted for refusal to register: 19 of those 21 were public resisters. Wherever there were trials, the rates of registration actually went down. This resistance halted prosecutions."

[Gary]

Ok just some observations here.

If the economy continues to tank, let's keep that in mind, continues to tank Bush will loose the White House in 2004. It doesn't matter even if he comes up with the best way to recover the economy, he won't because republicans are inept when it comes to job building. But even if he did he would still loose. Historically, a bad economy, even when it was a democrat, has caused the general population to kick the POTUS back to where he came from. It's how we vote, and why shouldn't we do it that way? The president is after all responsible for the mess.

Any efforts the Bush Administration has made to recover the economy has failed. Sure, we did have a resurgance in GDP, but when the money needed for Iraq will be about 4.3% of that figure, we're in for more economic suffering. Regardless of your opinion on the war, that much is fact. Even with this boost in the GDP the unemployment rate is still at 6.2%. The administration claims that the jobless claim files are going down, well that's to be expected. You can only fire so many people.


In regards to a draft, I'm eligible, but I'm not worried, they wouldn't dare reintroduce the draft it's bad politically and bad for the military. A volunteer based army is better then a forced service, no disrepect meant to those who may have served as a Draftee.

Yes, there have been no formal charges in declining to register for the draft, but they don't have to charge you. Why charge you when all they need to do is disqualify you for federal financial aid. In a country where college tuition is rising at an alarming rate, that's a pretty harsh treatment, and why I'm registered.

As far as the White House getting free reign if the economy tanks, that's just not going to happen. If the economy tanks the White House will be more limited in what it can do domestically, and the election will be effected by that. A bad economy will only force more rediculous tax cuts, and with the increase in spending, I think even some republicans may have to question the presumptive head of their party.

Also, if the economy remains bad and the democratic alternative is shown to voters as the only alternative, then they will probably largley vote Dem. People would rather be back in work and paying their payroll taxes, then sitting on their asses not making any money.

Democrats hold a long history of being able to spur the economy and produce jobs, we wrote the book on it.

Anyway, maybe I'll come back, maybe I won't, but I just wanted to add some things in.

As for the UN, today France and Germany balked at the US proposal. In the end I think these countries will provide aid, but the fact is the balk is and should've been expected.

[penzo]

Who needs the UN? Should be between the 3 countries that did the hard yards, America,UK and Australia. If the UN comes into it they will take all credit jsut as they did to us in East Timor. Once again It was somebody else that did the hard yards, (INTERFET)

[Geoff332]

Should be between the 3 countries that did the hard yards, America,UK and Australia.

You mean the three countries that are currently asking the UN for help?

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by penzo@Sep 10 2003, 01:35 AM Who needs the UN? Should be between the 3 countries that did the hard yards, America,UK and Australia. If the UN comes into it they will take all credit jsut as they did to us in East Timor. Once again It was somebody else that did the hard yards, (INTERFET)

No, the hard yards are the next 3 years minimum of peacekeeping. All the UN has to do is hold out till the US is begging for help and then some more, then it can start redressing the balance. See this Kyoto treaty, sign it. Stick your GM foods up your ass and quit whining cause we don't want to eat em. For gods sake cut your agricultural and steel subsidies (the EU needs to cut its farm subs. too). Oh, the IBM treaty, we'd like to see you sign that too. Internation Human Rights of the Child? Sign that too, even if it stops you from executing children. Oh, and while we're here, we'd like to talk about those loans you owe us. Hehe, you thought the Wall Street Crash was bad for you? Well now your gonna be at the German end of it.

[indierockboy]

Democrats hold a long history of being able to spur the economy and produce jobs, we wrote the book on it.

which is exactly what i was alluding too. if the economy tanks, the democrats will be voted in, which will then spur the economy and produce jobs. and thus the white house will have saved the day, at least in the eyes of the public.

[Gary]

Well, if that was what you were alluding to, it was not clear in your post. Furthermore, when someone says the "White House" is in a good position, the term is always assoicated with the administration in office.

[indierockboy]

if i had meant the current administration, i would've stated "the bush administration". in my original post, i made it clear by references to the white house as well as each of the two parties.

[RebelWithanAK]

Actually, Gary is right - you have to keep your terminology the same as the rest of us, otherwise all chaos breaks loose. The White House is the current administration, otherwise known as the encumbants.

[rmnunez]

The Amerrican effort to enlist greater support from the UN or to acquire some sort of UN 'imprimatur' is aimed at securing further commitments for military deployments from other countries. The need for reinforcements is a consequence (though only in part) of the greater 'resistance' encountered in the occupation. The Americans are being knocked off at a rate of a soldier a day in sporadic ambushes and such. These attacks are not at all the conventional military situation and often pit them against potential civilians and surrounded by absolutely innocent bystanders. The US casualty rate does not seem excessive to me. History documents higher casualty rates (either side and both) in Vietnam and WW2. UNHCR has compiled documentation of casualty rates in a variety of Latin American and African uprisings and these are far higher on a per diem basis. While the Americans are facing unanticipated 'resistance', the level of casualties they are taking is not something unbearable (with all due regard to the tremendous grief their families surely feel). Its a sacrifice the Americans, through Bush II, have expressed a will to bear.

UN endorsement is a condition imposed by, for example, India. There are a number of countries "on the fence" about this. They apreciate the need to help the US manage the situation, have resources and expertise to contribute, but will withhold military commitments for UN backing. The UN is receptive and sympathetic to the US predicament and seems to encourage raprochement, not out of puppetry to American interests rather than out of the sensible perception multilateralism is preferable to what we see now. The Americans seek nominal foreign deployments so they can rotate their forces out. Probably 15 thousand foreigners would suffice and about 2 thirds of these have been committed. However, their primary value is in internationalizing the profile so some 'heat' is taken from the arguments we see some sort of US 'occupation'.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Yeah, Democrats did write the book on taxing money from the people and using it to set up jobs where even those too lazy to work do not mind "working". Sorry that is not my idea of 'employment'.