| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| Spending projection: $150 billion by 2005 | ||
| 2004-05-10 | ||
As a measure of the Bush administration’s priorities in the war on terrorism, it has spent about $3 in Iraq for every $1 committed to homeland security, experts say. That divide may be growing. The Pentagon says its monthly costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom shot up from $2.7 billion in November to nearly $7 billion in January, the last month for which ithas provided figures. Since then, the number of troops has jumped by 20,000 to 135,000, and the bloody insurgency has grown. Defense officials initially said the troop increases were temporary, but last week they changed course and said they planned to maintain the higher levels through 2005, along with increased numbers of tanks and other heavy military equipment. The tempo of military operations has increased sharply in response to a wave of lethal attacks, suggesting the costs still may be climbing. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have started to express deep concern over the costs and the way in which the Bush administration is choosing to cover them. They contend that the White House has been relying on budgeting stratagems to conceal the overall expense, at least until after the election in November. And lawmakers worry that Congress is going to be forced to do something the White House has said until now was not necessary: Chop away at other government programs to cover the costs of an occupation that has no end in sight.
| ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #42 Hank summarized Rex's ideas well. But Rex made one hollow point and I just can't let it go without at least pointing out that it is hollow. "Iraqis did not attack the Twin Towers. Where did you read that? Egyptians and Saudis attacked the Twin Towers because they saw it as part of a Holy War." There are still people who think we attacked Iraq because the govt thinks the Iraqis flew planes into our buildings, and that just is not so. The dangers presented by a Saddam led Iraq have been described ad nauseum. The importance of the Iraqi operation on the overall WoT is evidenced by the effort the Islamists have put into preventing a democratic government in Iraq. You can mock the "Wolfie" plans all you want, but it is clear the Islamists are terrified by the idea of a free Muslim nation, and they are determined to prevent it. |
| Posted by: Carlos 2004-05-10 5:26:38 PM |
| #41 Now Rex is talkin ideas, and they ain't bad. We treats our friends as friends, and our enemies as enemies. We tells enemies what we gonna do if they cross us, and if they do we obliderate them. We build fences to keep those who aint welcome out. We bio-ID all of us, and watch us real close. We tie our help to foreigners with their doing good, and make them prove it for they get more. Rex is thinkin, an I don know if theys good ideas, but at least theys ideas. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-05-10 5:14:25 PM |
| #40 Why is everyone so reluctant to separate ourselves from Iraq and move on to stabilizing and investing in Kurdistan? What is the problem? How does keeping hated American GI's in Sunni/Shiite Iraq stop Al Queda from gaining an influence in their government? We have straddled our GI's with such limited rules of engagement, that it will be very hard for our GI's to kill known Al Queda operatives without causing big Shiite/Sunni noses getting bent out of shape. Before you know it, our forces will be killed left and right by formerly neutral Shiites/Sunnis who have thrown in their lot with their Al Queda religious brethern. Many of you are still waiting for the roses to be thrown to our GI's in Iraq. Forget about it. It will never happen. Germany and Japan shared similar cultural and social values to the USA. Both were CIVILIZED countries, to put it bluntly without a medieval religion that names non-Muslims as "infidels", so re-building Germany and Japan and winning over their loyalties and gratitude was a slam dunk...to quote Tenet, only in this case the phrase is appropriate. The very notion that we can win the war on terrorism by transforming a medieval tribal Islamic society in Iraq into another postwar Germany or postwar Japan boogles the mind. Can you not see how ludicrous Wolfie's plan is? The best we can hope to gain from this ill-considered pie-in-the-sky venture in Iraq, as I said before, is to establish neutral, maybe even good will from the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis who will eventually govern in their respective countries. Countries plural, not a single Iraq country, Wolfie. Staying much longer after July 01 galvanizes 2 warring tribes of Muslims against the USA and invites the real possiblity that their unified hostility to US "occupation" will get worse by aligning themselves with Al Queda operatives in the region who would be only too willing to come to their aid. Taking the bullet, paying the price as some of you say misses the point. It's not how much $ you wave at the Shiites and Sunnis that's going to make them like us. It's how quickly we keep our promise to not "occupy" them. It's how swiftly we remove any hint of what they view as decadent Western life styles from their midst, decadence which they do not want "infecting" them. They hate our non-burka clad females, they despise our don't ask, don't tell intelligence officers. They dispise our fair skin, our make up, our jewelry, our punked hair styles, everything that shouts "infidel" is a threat to them. The sexual "humiliation" of the Iraqi POW's has been the icing on the cake for these religious folks. Don't you get it? The more we stay, the more we alienate any vestige of goodwill they may have felt towards us 1.5 years ago. The WoT will not be won by rebuilding Iraq into a full-fledged democracy. It will be to let Muslims live as they choose and that means letting them practise their religion no matter how much it pains us. Iraqis did not attack the Twin Towers. Where did you read that? Egyptians and Saudis attacked the Twin Towers because they saw it as part of a Holy War. These terrorists were not poor plebs. They were educated middle class Muslims who came legally to our shores to send a message that they despised our affluent and decadent life styles. So putting a fair haired B.G. Janice Karpinski in charge of Saddam's prison in Iraq and having a female GI smoking a cigarette and putting a leash on naked male POW's just confirmed to them what OBL has been preaching in his broadcasts. I say we should support our Muslim allies in the ME -like the Kurds and Israel, and give respectful neutral distance to the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, keeping a watchful eye from a distance. And if we see and can prove nasty business is afoot in those 2 countries, we CRUSH them militarily with no regard to collateral damage and then we set up a US military run gov't and make it clear that anyone that messes with us again will have their favorite mosques wacked. I think we should make that message very clear to the clerics before we pull out...that American interests are numbero uno with us and if they pull any jack ass moves like getting chummy with OBL, we will not hestitate to CRUSH them, because our military base in Kurdistan is only minutes away. Then I say we seal up our borders in the USA,put military/national guard on our borders to back up the border patrol[cover your ears, neocons and Democrats] and make it very very hard for Al Queda to get any ideas about paying off some corrupt Federales to get them across the southern border. We should put a moratorium on all immigration except for business visas until we can sort out who we have within our borders and how much we need every year. We should also pay for each American citizen and legal resident to get high tech faorgery proof biometric ID cards and tell the ACLU to take a hike. In fact, we should suspend the non-profit status of the ACLU and cause them major financial woes by fighting them with amicus briefs from the Federal Justice Department on every case they bring to court. As well, we should suspend the practice of babies used as citizenship anchors. And we should tie all foreign aid to verifiable annual goals of "progress." I think our porous borders or easy access to US citizenship and our holus bolus foreign aid to Third World thugs and dictators cause us greater dangers from terrorism and undesirables generally than whether or not Shiite and Sunnis have the Bremer-Wolfie perfect version of "democracy." It's the enemies within that are greater threats to us than the enemy without or at least that's my opinion. Before we start "fixing' other nations in the world, we should remodel the leaky roofs and plumbing in our own house. Any Presidential candidate who said he would protect America's borders in actions and not in PC words would win an 8 year term hands down. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-10 4:16:57 PM |
| #39 murat - turkey still has not atoned for the massacre of armenians.. yes America did the indians wrong but frankly if we did not take the land the russians, brits, french, maybe spain or mexico definetly would have. there was not outside pressures like this in turkey's systimatic extermination a people it did not desire... with your attempt at trying jerry jig the numbers of amrenians in the empire just shows the attempt to deny... turkey was wrong and is still wrong for trying to distort history..at least America can look at herself and realize mistakes... so how that new niegbor - kurdistand? and how was that bitch slap from the euro winnies? |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-05-10 3:56:55 PM |
| #38 Whether it costs $150 billion or $150 trillion Lotta BirdFeed! Lotta BirdFee! Ack! 10 time American economy! 10 time American Economy! Ack! |
| Posted by: Churchills Parrott 2004-05-10 3:53:36 PM |
| #37 Besides, this is from main paper of the only holdover left from Soviet Communism: SAN FRANCISCO. I propose that it should be detached from California and Super Glued onto France. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 3:06:04 PM |
| #36 Y'all's pickin on Rex and it aint fair. He aint got no ideas on how to avoid the "bigger bill" like Jake said. But I ain't seen no other ideas from no one else either. Truth is there aint no easy answer. Ever path is diffcult, and unless we get some backbone as a nation to see things through, then we gonna have to pay that bigger bill. Folks we gotta make sure that bigger bill dont arrive. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-05-10 2:59:03 PM |
| #35 Interesting thoughts, rex, but I still repeat what I said above. We cannot leave the region to itself. If left alone, they will go back to jihad on America (Hello 9/11 or worse.) and also will fight between themselves. The Waahab Sunnis, based in Saudi Arabia, want to kill Shi'ites as much as Jews, Christians and Americans. They've got to have Democracy and if it's rather force fed to them by US soldiers, so much the better. There were those who thought we should have left last year after the liberation and look at the insurgency that's sprung up now--Thank God we were there to stop the bad guys! And those WMDs are probably in Syria (or Jordan or Iran or SA). They're still out there somewhere in the hands of bad guys. America is going to drag the Middle East into the 21st Century, even if it's screaming and kicking and dying. Islamists think that Democracy is a heresy and want to revert to sharia. We've got to change that thinking permanently or we'll be watching our back (and our front) until the end of time for the next 9/11 attack on our soil...and the next one will be far worse, because next door Iran almost surely has nukes. So does Pakistan, next door to Afghanistan and that nuke program is paid for by the Sauds. But in the future, the Sauds might not feel the need to be secretive and just outright have them, right next to Iraq. The United States is exactly where we need to be with troops--in Iraq fighting our enemies, IslamoFacists. Whether it costs $150 billion or $150 trillion, we've got to bite the bullet and pay it because in the end, our way of life and our very lives themselves depend on it. (And I don't care how awful you think it is, even 1000 KIA soldiers is NOTHING compared to any other war we've been in. This is not to say that we don't mourn every life lost, but Jebus Christ, man! That's still only 1/3 of the number of civilians we lost on 9/11!!! Get a grip and butch up!) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 2:48:50 PM |
| #34 Rex, you don't have to make the argument that it is dangerous in Iraq, or that the task we undertook was difficult. There is no question that mistakes have been made in the conduct of the the occupation portion of the mission. No one would want to send their kids to Iraq to fight terrorists, you don't need to make that point. But what is the plan to defeat radical Islamic fundamentalism? It doesn't make any difference if the solution is a neo-con plan, a "old fashoined conservative" plan, a liberal plan or a even a European plan. These guys who flew planes into our buildings are not through. They still hate us, they still want to kills us (its their religious duty), they still plot and plan for the spectacular attack that will dwarf 9/11. Are you one of the ones who believes we can treat terrorist attacks as simple criminal activity? No plan needed other than to investigate crimes and arrest the prepetrators? When the big one goes off in NY, then we start our investigation, and we'll nail them then. The only problem then would be the price had gone uo to a million American lives and a destroyed US and world economy. Or maybe you are one of the ones who thinks we should just call on our friends at the UN, let them solve the problem. That's right, talk them to death. Your kind of thinking is just what Hank (#20) was referring to. Cry about the price now, but no clue how to avoid the bigger bill later. |
| Posted by: Jake 2004-05-10 2:48:30 PM |
| #33 I am hardly a "leftie." I am an old fashioned conservative, a paleo-con, as neocons like to refer to us. If I "pick" on Wolfie, it's because he is a willing victim and he deserves my scorn. Wolfie is no genius or hero to me. Wolfie has placed a higher value on the potential for a personal "legacy" in history books than on GI's lives today. Actually I hold Rumsfield in high regard, because I think he is more realistic and respectful of how military might can be "persuasive." I suspect that Rumsfield, given a free hand, would not waste time "winning hearts and minds." He'd get in , win the war at any cost, and get out in short order. He actually fought in WWII and learned that in oreder to win a war one needs to be brutal. Do you think Rumsfield and his contemporaries would have beat the Axis powers by abiding to every subsection of the Geneva Convention. Doubt it. That President Bush shares many of the neocon philosophies is not something I respect in him. It's not because I'm a leftie. It's because I dis respect the leftie aspects in him. Some call it "feeding the enemy" when I criticize aspects of President Bush's liberal brand of conservativism. I say letting him stay on a disasterous neocon course without feedback from the rank and file conservative base is more treacherous for the party and the country as a whole. To sing Wolfie Rocks and Tenet is Cool ballads 24/7 all the while allowing GI body bags from Iraq to reach the bewitching number of 1000, which will happen in short order, will cause Americans to dump the Republicans in November. Bush is 20 times better than Lurch, but is Bush a Lincoln? No. Lurch is hopeless. But Bush can be redeemed from a neocon fuzzy wuzzy ME approach.Thinking a war of ideas will win over Islam is nuts. Look at what's happening in America if you want a test case. We bring Muslim immigrants here, we educate them, we tempt them with freedom and liberty...and what happens...eveywhere you turn, Muslim women are wanting to wrear burkas, and we are seeing the beiginning of Muslim call to prayer blaring through our public squares 5x a day. What does that tell you about the deep power of Islam? Bush's WoT in Afghanistan is fine. I don't mind his blasting Al Queda cave hide outs and nailing Taliban fighters. That's what military are supposed to do. Make terrorists permanently disappear and put the fear of God into those gov't regimes who might hide or support them. But Bush's plan for using military to change hearts and minds and impose a democracy on Shiites and Sunnis is naive and dangerous if he continues on Wolfie's inflexible course. To under estimate the power of religion on those 2 tribes could be disasterous in the long run. A Commander and Chief who is smart enough to change strategy as required on the battlefield is the man who will win wars. It's not by accident that the Sunnis and Shiites have not ever chosen democracy over the course of the past few hundreds of years. There's a reason-it's called religion-we must respect Islam's influence and work to peaceful co-existence where possible. It seems some people, including the WH, are so worried about the "negative image" of "withdrawing" from Sunni/Shiite Iraq that they have lost sight of why we went to Iraq in the first place. We have accomplished our goals. Was "withdrawing" never a goal? Did the neocons think we'd have our military babysit the Shiites and Sunnis forever? What for? Why over stay our welcome? How does inflaming Muslim resentment due to our "occupier" label in Iraq help the WoT? As I recall some of the reasons for invading Iraq were to search for WMD and to remove Saddam who have been giving aid and comfort to terrorists. We have chased any WMD in Iraq, if they existed to any great degree, to Syria. Assad, who is not as wacky as Uncle Saddam, no doubt is sweating bullets that his pal's WMD should ever be found in his country...the end result is that those WMD are out of commission. We have intimidated Lybia to come clean about their WMD projects and to spill the beans on other partners. We have given the Sunnis and Shiites some rough democracy guidelines and we have arranged for the UN to over see the election process, if the Iraqis want their help. We have re-trained their police force and re-built much of their aging infa structure. Why should we stay any longer? What's the point? Building a military base in Kurdistan seems like the only logical thing to do next. Maybe some of you should think about whether or not you would want to send your own kids to be based in the volatile region of Shiite and Sunni terroritory for the next 50 years, before you gamely assign that death wish task to other families' kids. Keeping GI's in Iraq much beyond the July 01 deadline is selfish to say the least. Those GI's will have more and more Muslim hatred directed at them and will only drive the so-called good Iraqis closer to Al Queda, not farther away. Let's move on to Kurdistan, while the going is good. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-10 2:21:32 PM |
| #31 Me: Scalping wasn't introduced by Europeans. Murat: Correction, it was, in fact white europeans paid for every death Indian, the scalp was the proof, if I am not mistaken invented by the Dutch in New Amsterdam (known to you as New York) You're completely full of shit, Murat. You're confusing the practice of paying bounties with the practice of scalping. It may be that Europeans were the first to pay bounties -- though the native use of scalps as proof of manhood and symbols of martial prowess may be interpreted as "paying" in a form other than cash. In any case, scalping was 100% definitely in North America before Columbus was even conceived. You see, there are a number of pre-Columbian skulls that show evidence of having been scalped -- before, after, and around the time of death. The site I'm most aware of is the Crow Creek Massacre site, which dates to around 1325. Medial and lateral views of skull fragments (parietal bone) show a large circumscribed area of osteomyelitis on the outer surface. This is commensurate with the effects of antemortem scalping. On the parietal bone medially there are many dilated vascular spaces, as would be seen with inflammatory process on the bone's surface. This process appears to healing, and the individual was able to function until the time of death. The problem, Murat, is that you have bought into every scrap of anti-American propaganda you've ever come across. You're a bigot, in other words, and you're apparently proud of it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-10 12:55:23 PM |
| #30 Plus, it's no good calling those of us who support the war "neo-cons" or "chickenhawks" and picking on Wolfowitz. We're patriotic Americans who love our country and never want to see another day here like 9/11. Full stop. Besides, President Bush thinks exactly the same way as "Wolfie" or is that the point of you Lefties? You try to pick Bush's main men like Tenet, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld which feeds the beast that demands you finally get Bush himself. Nice try. Sort of. Meanwhile, you Libs are just sick that these tax dollars you're bitching about aren't going to feed the coffers of all your worthless social welfare programs (=Pork). Myself, I love knowing that I'm helping to fund the joint U.S.-Israeli laser death ray! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 12:50:16 PM |
| #29 Rex - a swing and a miss. The question Hank is asking relates to the larger WoT, not just Iraq. At least "Wolfie" has a strategic plan to address the WoT. No one else does, and the Islamists are not going to quit and stay home. Unless there is some plan to win this "war of ideas," then it will end up as a war of mass killing. We will win that one, but the cost will be greater. Hank - did I get that right? |
| Posted by: Sam 2004-05-10 12:30:16 PM |
| #28 Sorry, I did not "just gripe." I defended my view that Wolfie's pie-in-the-sky plan is a recycled domino theory that does not have a good track record 30 years ago nor does it work well today. You can't just super-impose democracy on a nation. As for my alternative idea, I presented it in my previous 2 posts. That is, to withdraw our GI's from the Sunni and Shiite parts of Iraq. Our presence in those 2 countries is resented more each day. It's obvious we are seen as occupiers rather than liberators, and it does not matter whether we have 20,000 troops or 120,000 troops there. They want us out, end of story. I say that we should build a large military base in Kurdistan. No doubt the Kurds would love us to be there to protect them from Turkey, Iran, and Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. Furthermore, this military presence would enable a "protected environment" for oil companies to bring the engineering expertise and the technology there to make the Kurds rich and supply us with needed fuel resources. It's a win-win for us and the Kurds. As well, a military base in Kurdistan gives us a strategic presence in the ME to make sure that Syria and Iran are not planning any nasty attacks on Israel. I think Wolfie's grandiose idea of having a united Iraq of warring tribes is too rigid and impractical. Wolfie, like many neocons, are loathe to value one culture over another because at heart, neocons, are liberals wearing hawk costumes. So he thinks that Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites will be singing Kumbaye in the next 50-100 years if we just throw enough American $ and GI's lives at the problem. I say the Kurds have demonstrated through their actions that a) they are our allies and b) they value democracy and freedom. So why fight what's obvious? Go with the flow and protect a friend. As for the Sunnis and Shiites, perhaps they would be happier having their separate countries as well. Why does Iraq have to be one country? Why not 3 countries? Maybe we should let the Shiites and Sunnis decide what's best for themselves, instead of some neocon bureaucrat in an office in DC deciding. As for |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-10 12:13:53 PM |
| #27 As Rex shows, its easy to gripe. Now answer Hank's question - "I aint seen no ideas that don't include a higher price later. Got one?" |
| Posted by: Jake 2004-05-10 11:31:05 AM |
| #26 Mary Poppins, all but the 1.5 million your country deliberately killed (and have never acknowledged or asked forgiveness for). Strange figure that 1.5mln, Ottoman empire population statistics of 1910 show 1.2mln Armenians lived throughout the whole empire, I guess we must have killed some of them twice to get to 1.5mln :) Do you know that first claims of Armenian massacre claimed 200.000 but with the years those numbers inflated, well if you tell a ly and token it forward you get wild stories at the end. :) Remember "Midnight Express" was Holywood phantasy, Abu Graib is for real! |
| Posted by: Murat 2004-05-10 11:27:45 AM |
| #25 It's not just the financial cost of force feeding democracy to Sunnis and Shiites, tribesmen who are locked into a rigid unreformed religion, it's the human lives lost in Iraq. Oh sure, neocons say, it's only 700 soldiers killed and better them than civilians in New York. I say to you that any American life, in uniform or not, that is lost in a PC war of "winning hearts and minds" and that's fought against an enemy that our leadership does not have the courage to spit out is wasted. What does "evil men" mean? I am sick to death of Islam is a religion of peace schtick. Of all our Congressmen, only one has a child serving in the military. To them-both Democrats and Neoconc-because they have no vested interested in the lives of the military and the vast majority of them have not fought in a war, see soldiers as chess pieces in their grand scheme of changing modern history. Some of you may think Wolfie is a genius with vision, and that's your perogative. I say Wolfie is a disingenuous bureaucrat, who has not come any closer to a battlefield than playing Half Life on his computer. Also, I suspect that Wolfie, like many neocons, started out as a liberal and changed his tune when he saw that military might could be useful in changing world order. What has Wolfie come up with that is so Einstein-like? His theory of democracizing Iraq is like the domino theory of Vietnam and Korea but in reverse. Oh yes, we'll bring democracy to these savages[even if we have to blow them up to liberate them] and then happy happy liberated feelings will spread throughout the Middle East and 100 years from now they'll love us, because that's what drives neocons-the selfish desire to be liked by the world. And we know how wonderfully successful the domino theory worked in the past. Someone suggested that we should empathize with those children whose parents did not come home from the Twin Towers, and I say maybe some of you should start empathizing with those families whose boys have not come home from Iraq because they had their throats slit and their bodies mutilated and covered in shallow sandy graves. Start thinking about those families who are left to grapple with the thought that "evil men" killed their loved ones. There's no closure for these families, because the "enemy" has no name. This past week leaders of both political parties had their panties in a twist bemoaning alleged "torture"[in San Francisco some people pay good money to be put on a leash] committed against Iraqi POW's. Swimmer almost broke into tears; Rumsfield promised REPARATIONS to these POW's [say what? this is war, I thought, and these particular POW's were not choir boys]; Bush apologized to the POW's and their families even. How does that make our military feel? Betrayed, that's what. I have a question for our politicians...how do you extract info from POW's if you follow the Geneva Convention to the letter of the law? And silly me, I thought the Geneva Convention addressed the rules of war fought between 2 civilized countries with fighters in uniform. If some of you think we should keep GI's in Iraq, taking bullets for your "safety" you can forget about that idea flying for very long[ democracy tkes a long time] I will not send my kids or my neighbors' kids to fight in the ME against a nebulous enemy with limited rules of engagement so armchair warriors can hug themselves about how they are fighting the war on terrorism. As I said, protecting the Kurds and their oil fields makes good sense. But stopping a bullet for Sunnis or Shiites is foolish. Preventing an Islamofacist dictator from taking over is their fight to fight. How short sighted can we be to think that only Americans will fight for freedom. If that's the case, we bother going to Iraq in the first place? As Bush said, it's wrong to think brown skinned Iraqis are any less likely to value freedom. It's time to move on a let the Sunnis and Shiites have their Civil War. Let our GI's sit tight in Kurdistan, where they are welcome. Also, putting GI's on the ground in Iraq has not served as the terrorist "magnet" that Wolfie dreamed it would do. Last I read Al Queda was planning on detonating 20 suitcase bombs in America and Europe. So much for Wolfie the genius. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-10 11:26:58 AM |
| #24 Hank (#20) asks the right question - "I aint seen no ideas that don't include a higher price later. Got one?" |
| Posted by: Sam 2004-05-10 11:23:08 AM |
| #23 Yeah, we should have left the Indians alone. By now they might have invented the wheel. |
| Posted by: Cody 2004-05-10 11:20:22 AM |
| #22 Rabirt, Scalping wasn't introduced by Europeans. Correction, it was, in fact white europeans paid for every death Indian, the scalp was the proof, if I am not mistaken invented by the Dutch in New Amsterdam (known to you as New York) Last time you were asked about the Armenians, you said your neighbor was one. Now you say they're in Armenia. What happened to your neighbor? Don't worry he is still there |
| Posted by: Murat 2004-05-10 11:18:49 AM |
| #21 Murat- Ask the Kurds if they're happy in Turkey. BTW-there's also a country called Turkmenistan. Does that mean all Turks would be happy to move there? Oh that's right, you're Turks, not men;) |
| Posted by: Spot 2004-05-10 11:14:34 AM |
| #20 It's like shopping at Neiman Marcus, cept we don't exactly know what we are buying. We'd like to buy a clear win in Iraq, and I guess that would mean some form of democratic government and a free Muslim country. Ain't many of those. We aint shopping cause we just love the Muslims. We're trying to buy some security here. Its like the old Fram Oil filter commercial - we can try to buy it now or we can try to buy it later. Later it'll cost a lot more. A big part of this war is the war of ideas, and you'd think we'd be good at that. Our idea is freedom, and their idea is suicide bombers and this Islamic law for everbody. But our free media and some of our politicians seem to be helpin them, and it don't make sense. Lessee - the price is high, but we gonna pass now and pay more later. I aint seen no ideas that don't include a higher price later. Got one? |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-05-10 11:03:13 AM |
| #19 Murat--all but the 1.5 million your country deliberately killed (and have never acknowledged or asked forgiveness for). As for the native Americans, almost all of them dissapeared through intermarriage (I'm 1/32 Indian and so are more Americans today). There were a few massacres (from a dozen to a few hundred killed) of which none of us are proud, but most simply intermarried with the Europeans. Unlike the Armenians who are dead dead dead--and YOU are responsible... |
| Posted by: mary 2004-05-10 10:58:15 AM |
| #18 where are the Indians? Still crushed? (scalped?) Are you REALLY that ignorant? Wait. Yes, you really are. 1) There were more than 4 million Native Americans counted in the US census; that includes those who marked "Native" and other races on the census, but doesn't include those (like myself) who have Indian ancestors but don't really consider themselves Indians. 2) Many tribes get to administer their own territory and apply their own laws; has Turkey ever considered doing that for the Kurds? 3) Scalping wasn't introduced by Europeans. 4) Last I checked, Iraqis are still in Iraq and are going to get their own government on July 1st. When is Turkey going to hand the Kurds their own government? 5) Last time you were asked about the Armenians, you said your neighbor was one. Now you say they're in Armenia. What happened to your neighbor? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-10 10:58:07 AM |
| #17 heh heh - you satirize yourself - I can do no better ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-10 10:57:01 AM |
| #16 Frank, nope they happily live on in a country called Armenia, but where are the Indians? Still crushed? (scalped?) How about the liberated Iraqis? I mean those who still have their clothes on, not those pervert ones posing on photos ass seks slaves of female GI's. |
| Posted by: Murat 2004-05-10 10:32:01 AM |
| #15 Murat, Israel never occupied a country called Palestine, but the Turks occupy the Eastern Roman Empire. So glad we can come to an agreement. Free Constantinople! |
| Posted by: Anonymous4783 2004-05-10 9:58:28 AM |
| #14 "People never said freedom was cheap" Darn right. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4783 2004-05-10 9:57:37 AM |
| #13 how's that Armenian thing 'Rat? Still crushed? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-10 9:54:26 AM |
| #12 Spot, Turkey never occupied a country called Kurdistan, so your analogy here is wrong, could be right on Indians in America however. |
| Posted by: Murat 2004-05-10 9:50:26 AM |
| #11 I guess the trolls' crack supply musta come in sometime last night. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-05-10 9:20:37 AM |
| #10 Murat- Since you brought up the subject of fighting against an occupation, it sounds to me like you support the Kurds in Turkey joining a larger Kurdistan!) |
| Posted by: Spot 2004-05-10 9:09:25 AM |
| #9 Oldspook, I didn't see your post until after I placed mine, but it looks like we have the same argument in mind. If we had taken seriously the 1993 attack on the world trade center and dealt with it appropriately, We never would have had to experience the second attempt. Would it have cost us a lot cash? Yeah. Would it have cost us some prestige and "goodwill"? Yes, depending on what you call "goodwill" and from whom we were worried about losing it. In WWII, appeasement attitudes kept the west from acting until it was almost too late. Now the cry of, "too expensive!" is freaking people out. Pay now, or pay later, but every day the interest is compounding. |
| Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-10 8:57:24 AM |
| #8 150 billion dollars is a lot money. But, how much would it be worth to a child who lost their father or mother at the WTC to have that person come home from work again just one more time? Bottom line, all specific aguments aside, it was our enemies who decided that they had had enough and called this game, and who laid down the terms of engagement. They showed that they were willing to fight with their biggest guns, their most abundant asset -their lives. The West, therefore is obligated to fight, measure for measure, with whatever it considers it's "biggest guns" - in this case, it's wealth, and influence. There is no more sense in saving for a rainy day - the clouds are upon us and we're feeling the first drops. Our lives are something that we'll fight to protect, their lives are something that they're willing to throw away in the promise of reward in the world to come. |
| Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-10 8:34:49 AM |
| #7 OK, in today's money, how much did it take us to rebuild Japan from a feudal warrior led society into a peaceful democratic one? And rebuilding Europe from a pit of 1930's fascism, communism and totalitarianism into a peaceful democracy? And how long did all that take? Was it worth it? How many times since WW2 have he had to go and commit lives in Europe and Japan in the numbers we did in 1917 and 1944? None. Its pretty obvious that some of these people are being very short sighted because it gains them political ground. But it will cost us in blood in the long run if we try to cheap out and do not change the culture over there through sustained economic and social reforms. And that will take money and time. Do we, as a people, have the guts to answer the words of the real JFK, to pay any price, bear any burden? Cheap out now and we will end up with more Shah of Iran types which will be followed by a series of Ayatollahs. Which will be paid for in US blood. Civilian and military. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-05-10 8:22:44 AM |
| #6 T Rex "liberating" ungrateful Sunnis and Shiites. Liberating??? Yeah by Bush definitions this means: "We liberated the Iraqis from the torture chambers (Abu graib) of Saddam, errr I mean we took over the office" Giving Iraqis the opportunity to fight for their freedom Well they seem to take that opportunity and are fighting for their freedom (against the occupation that is). I would say there is actually a success that the US has achieved, they managed to unite the Shia and the Sunni and made them realise they are one people of one nation to fight for a united goal. Albeit a bit different than planned I think the US will succeed in forming a nationhood in Iraq in the end by uniting the Shia's and Sunni's, there is hope :) |
| Posted by: Murat 2004-05-10 6:59:38 AM |
| #5 Well, Mr. Wahabi, are you through with your talking points from James Carville? Slinging mud, lies and slander? I won't even start on Bill Clinton or John Kerry because I want to get some sleep tonight and that takes time. But suffice it to say that those Waahab-funded mosques were set up in this country long before GWB took office...and if you'd like to see who took money from the Sauds, take a look at Bill Clintoon. As soon as he was named the Dimocrat presidential nominee, the Sauds funded a multi-million dollar wing for Islamic Studies at the University of Arkansas! Don't know about you, but I've never met a Muslim from Arkansas. And Dick Cheney made $0 from his "Gulf War I" contacts--as the Vice Presidential nominee, his financial records were an open book, which is a lot more than we can say for either Hillary Clinton, who has yet to produce those Rose Law Firm billing records or Kerry's very rich, Leftist wife. Furthermore, I hope a lot of money does go to Halliburton, who is unsurpassed and without rival in the Oil Services bid'ness, and to defense contractors to give our troops what they need to defend our liberty and to keep us safe! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 3:27:30 AM |
| #4 Der Prez: Yeah, its a lot of money but much'll go to Haliburton and defense contractors who will kick it back to me. Keep the pressure off my Saud backers. They owe me one for lettin' 'em escape justice in the 9-11 massacre, and fer lettin' 'em set up Wahab mosques all over America. They gave Daddy half-mil for his library, last year. Cheney made over $50,000,000 from his Gulf War 1 contacts, and I want my Texas grub stake. Hell, I made loads of unearned cash from Arbusto, Carlyle Group, UAE, Enron, Texas Rangers (yup, ah traded Sammy Sosa)flops. Only in America, can a well connected alcoholic half-wit like me, mek it good. Keep callin' my toe-tappin' critics, "trolls," and coverup any thing that might cause suspicion about my Texas style book-cooking. Special thenk ya to Jenny Clampett. Yee-Hah! |
| Posted by: George Wahabi Bush 2004-05-10 3:14:58 AM |
| #3 There's nothing selfish or arrogant about "we" neocons at all; democratizing Iraq is all about pure self-interest and our security. If left to themselves, the Sunnis and the Shiites will form another Islamist theocracy somewhat between the old Saddam regime, but more like Iran--and it wouldn't be 5 minutes before they would be declaring jihad against the "Great Satan," except that this time, their Islamist neighbors and friends would join in with more abandon and committment. These people need to be taught the beauty of democracy and capitalism and what it's like to fully live in the 21st Century, rather than be stultified in the Islamic Middle Ages with a dead economy, growing youth population, no jobs, no education and no opportunities. Don't knock or blame everything on Mr. Wolfowitz--he's a very smart man who knows a lot more about bringing real peace to the world via bringing peace, prosperity and democracy to the Middle East. Not only are the IslamoFascists flocking to Iraq to fight us, and not coming to New York and Washington, but as a result of our presence in the region, Iraq's neighbors are slowly but surely having to incorporate democratic reforms into their Islamic totalitarian regimes, too. We're making great strides, it's just that it really isn't a video game and you're not going to get instantaneous results. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 2:53:52 AM |
| #2 Freedom for whom? Apart from protecting the welfare of our unwavering allies,the Kurds, I could care 2 hoots about "liberating" ungrateful Sunnis and Shiites. Did any nation give Americans their free republic on a silver platter? Giving Iraqis the opportunity to fight for their freedom and nationhood by removing Saddam is a big enough sacrifice on our part. I'm sorry, I don't tow the Wolfie neocon line about how wonderful we should feel sacrificing GI's on behalf of "liberating" raghead Sunnis and Shiites who have never and will never value democracy. Freedom came cheaply to Iraqi tribesmen who will hate us in the future, guaranteed, no matter what we do for them[Uncle Saddam made the trains run on time after all]. This "freedom" for Iraqis comes at great cost to Americans and I resent the arrogance and selfishness of neocons deeply. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-05-10 1:28:31 AM |
| #1 "Chop away..." They can start with PBS and NPR, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the rest of you can come up with a few dozen more stupid things we all pay for... |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2004-05-10 1:22:28 AM |