I never post in GD, but I really feel I must ask this question: How much longer will we be in Iraq? Bush is about to ask for another $80-100 billion to fund this campaign. When will the Uncle Sam’s generosity run out and the tough questions begin? Why are we still there now?
Furthermore, for the Iraqi War-supporters on the SDMB: do you still feel this was a good idea? How much money is needed to put an end to the situation? What would you do differently?
Adam
I’m a pretty vocal supporter of the war, I guess. I support the measures taken, mindful always that things haven’t gone perfectly.
I have to ask, though, Agent Foxtrot, if you believe WWII or the Korean War weren’t worth it. After all, we have troops in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea. They’ve been there for more than fifty years.
Measuring the justice of a war by the costs of the occupation and subsequent military presence seems misplaced to me. If a war was unjust to begin with, it doesn’t become more so by virtue of being expensive. If the war was just, or necessary, said expenses are merely the cost of doing business.
IOW, I think your premise is flawed right from the outset.
Never. Amercia is the most generous nation in the world, bar none. That wont end because some folks btich about it.
The tough questions? This war has been vocally demonized since before it began. The questions from the liberals and pacifists have never abated. If there are tougher questions, what are they?
Answering this in an understandable means requires the understanding of why we’re there in the first place. The job isn’t done. Were we to leave before the people of Iraq are prepared to handle things themselves, the result would be a coup of the struggling Iraqi government, and a dismantling of everything we’ve accomplished and are continuing to accomplish. If you’re of the opinion that nothing has been accomplished, then you wouldn’t understand why we’re still there.
If the Iraq occupation doesn’t last four years, they’ll just have to gin up another war for the sake of the next Republican candidate.
Rumsfeld, who looks like he’s going to stay in the job (Bush valuing loyalty over competence), has said he “hopes” the US troops can be withdrawn before the next presidential election.
But not to keep the Japanese, German, Italian, and South Korean populations pacified. The US forced there are not there as occupiers; they are there because the US has leased land for bases there. originally as deterrents against the USSR and now as logistical conveniences. There is no applicable comparison to Iraq.
It would be more useful to compare the situation to other military occupations in hostile countries. How long has any of them succeeded, and have they been worth the cost? The occupation of the Philippines and operations against the insurgents, for example, took half a century and ended with our departure.
You do have to add up all the costs against all the benefits, and that balance does shift and does have to be periodically reassessed. It is highly debatable if any major benefits are still realistically achievable in Iraq, even if that wasn’t necessarily the case at the start. What “justice” is left now?
Here’s what the US-installed government there expects:
But Saddam is out. Yay.
Which amounts to what, exactly? How IYHO is a civil war avertable, and hasn’t it already started?
And that would be, what, exactly?
What are the chances for a political party in Iraq that runs on a platform of “Gee, we really, really, love the Americans and want to invite them to stay for the forseeable future!”?
Or is it more likely that one of the main points of contention is which political party will be more pro-active in hustling us out the door? If there is a “Pro-American” party, what measures of support would be acceptable, given that we are so deeply concerned with democracy, and all that good stuff?
…and the winner for this year’s SDMB Wildly Implausible Understatement Award…may I have the envelope please…
First of all, welcome back to SDMB, Wrath, after 3 years absence.
Next. Could you back up your above declaration with a cite, taking into account the ranking of countries by their GDP per capita contribution to the development of the 3rd world. (And, NO. Exxon’s so-called investments in Nigeria is not contributing to Nigeria’s development. Neither is the American FMS contributions to Egypt).
That’s a valid point. But even at that, a formal occupation usually still takes several years.
A formal peace treaty with a Japanese government after WWII wasn’t signed until late 1951.
I see. So now the percentage of the sacrifice is more important than the sacrifice itself? In absolute dollars the US distributes far more aid than any country in the world, they pay the largest percentage of the operating costs of the UN, virtually every country in the world gets aid from us of some sort, and yet because it’s not a high enough percentage in your opinion the US is not generous enough?
That’s amazing. That’s like a beggar criticizing Bill Gates for being a cheapskate because he “only” dropped $1,000 on him, not even thinking for a second that it’s $1,000 he didn’t have just five minutes prior.
Nothing quite like ingratitude, is there?
Airman, The comment in question is wrath’s assertion that “America is the most generous nation in the world, bar none”, not that America is simply generous. His suggestion that the US is on a higher moral plane than the entire rest of the world is the one he’s being asked to support.
Mr. Moto, even Bush calls what we’re doing an “occupation”, and acknowledges that he himself wouldn’t like being “occupied” either. Why are you reticent to use the term yourself?
Huh?
Please look over my posts, where I discuss the lengths of various U.S. military occupations. I’ve used the word frequently enough in my previous two posts.
And this line of reasoning rears its ugly head again. I have commented at some length on this in the past. You may find some of my more recent remarks here.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Edited thread title for clarity. Please try to title your threads so that people can figure out what you want to debate.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
It can be said that the person who gives up half of his stuff compared to the person who drops a buck in the plate has made the greater sacrifice. But the people who get the money don’t care where it came from or from whom, because all they need is the money.
Therefore, once we eliminate the feel-good foo-foo stuff from it, the bottom line is we throw money around to everybody who needs it, so the percentage argument is bunk.
This has nothing to do with “feel-good foo-foo” stuff. The United States is giving a shockingly low proportion of its GDP to foreign aid, and this foreign aid is concentrated towards middle-income countries that are in unique positions to grant the United States important political favors.
If this qualifies as generosity in your book, well, I am glad I am not counting on your largesse to solve any world problems.
You guys are talking as if something other than political considerations govern these things with the Bush admin. Sorry, no sale.
The above has been the United States’ pattern for foreign aid for over 20 years. There is nothing new or unique to the Bush administration here.
Shocking to you, maybe. The actual amount is what’s shocking to me.
And you know what? You’re not supposed to count on largesse. Do you depend on someone to help you out at all times? What do you do when that safety net is removed? We don’t owe, we give. In my mind, that does not entitle people to say that we don’t give enough.
True, but to the best of my knowledge, the allied forces in Germany weren’t fighting resistence forces, but rather just doing police work and probably staring down the Soviets. If US forces in Iraq were tracking down looters and maybe keeping an eye on Iran, I think you’d find that the general US populace would be much more optimistic about the war. Instead, this occupation has proved far more violent then the initial invasion.
Most current Iraqi political parties, including the Al-Sistani endorsed shitte party which will probably win most of the posts in the elections, are running on an anti-US platform. That said, I’m fairly skeptical that whoever wins will send us packing, as they will find themselves dependent on American troops for protection and american money for reconstruction. If they want to stay in power, they will almost certainly resort to only symbolic anti-american gestures.
How you react to big numbers is not germaine.
You are also shamelessly dodging the issue.
“The US is very generous.”
“No, actually, it’s not.”
“Those poor bastards are lucky they get anything at all! What would happen to them if we cut off their dole?”
The response is, of course, that we really aren’t giving them very much in the first place.
Suppose we remove the so-called “safety net.” Israel would have fewer weapons, Musharraf probably wouldn’t survive in power, and I think Lambchop would be able to predict what would happen to the House of Saud. Our manifold generosity was bestowed with the greatest pomp, circumstance, and volume on Mobutu Sese-Seko. Any ideas how he spent the money? Dollars to donuts says you do know how Colombia spent the billions the United States gave in so-called aid.
Spare us the “we don’t owe” twaddle. We do owe. We owe big. Not to the tin horn tools we keep in power with our manifold generosity, but to the nations that this “aid” has ravaged, nations that certainly would have been better off if we had never been so “generous” in the first place.
So yes, we are very, very stingy.