Howdy,

I think I need to clear something up about what I mean when I say wartime economy. When I say this, I mean nothing more than a time in which the government is spending a great deal towards the defense budget - whether on programs to develop new weapons, radar, planes, ships, subs, whatever. When I say wartime economy I do not necessarily mean a time at which we are at war. Like you said, the recent wars/battles/whatever you call thems that we have engaged in certainly haven't seemed to help consumer confidence. One point of that is the fact that we have a little different world view now. I don't think the general public rallies behind wars like they did in WWI and WWII. Vietnam wrecked that, IMO. It was just the opposite and I don't think we are yet over the heartbreak of what was Vietnam. It took the war out of the general public and gave it a different view in their eyes. Before it seemed like such a patriotic act while now it seems (other than the patriotism explosion after Sept 11th) to be more separated from the individual. The country isn't bonded together in war like it was during WWI and WWII - it isn't a national effort but simply that of the military. I think that that feeling of the individual during those wars, while working in some industry related to the war (when we were so much more of a manufacturing economy), was a connectedness to the war in some way, the feeling that they were making a difference. I just don't see that today, and I would think it reflects our economic shift away from manufacturing and also the scale of the war. While WWI and WWII were worldly threats and a time of turmoil across the globe, Iraq is mearly Iraq - it isn't a tough battle but similar to a father setting his child straight again. Make any sense? lol ....

So I say our economy is strongest while spending at the same levels as we would while in war, but not fighting. This is what I mean by a wartime economy - huge defense budgest produce employment and economic strength.

Again you misunderstood what I said about Iraq. What I originally said was that nothing imminent prompted our actions there, that nothing had changed in 10 years. The same game of inspections, blah blah blah, had been going on since the end of the Gulf War. I didn't say that nothing had changed there since our actions, but simply that nothing had changed there to prompt them.

I do criticize the UN for it's lack of action in keeping up with the inspections and it's "slap-on-the-wrist" techniques to upholding agreements. It is a fine line to draw when trying to maintain peace but also keep the person doing what you wish. Economic sanctions will only go so far. Were they doing the best they could in Iraq? I wouldn't say so. I do believe that they had the best of intentions though - you must expect an international body such as them to be pacifists. After all, it was the reason they were created - to help prevent military action.

I don't blame the UN for not wanting to do a damn thing to help re-establish a government in Iraq. I have the same opinion as they seem to. You made the mess, now you clean it up. You can't expect countries that didn't want to see military action be forced to pay for it's clean up. Part of us taking action in Iraq was the fact that we were going to have to do this alone. That is one reason I think that it was a mistake to go outside the UN and do this. The UN has more of a peacekeeping "aura" around them than an American soldier in fatigues. The anti-American sentiment spreads far and wide in the Middle East and that is why so many of our young men are dying now after the "war" has already ended. A US soldier will not be successful at peacekeeping in the Middle East nearly as well as a UN one would. The international makeup of the UN helps this substantially. Many in the Middle East do not hate the Germans, the Russians, the French, the Australians, the South Africans, etc nearly as much as they hate the Americans. It is something we have to deal with and a reason that using the UN is very wise lest we lose many of our young men.

With another 6 months of the BS going on in Iraq with inspections etc we probably could have built a coalition in the UN to take some sort of action if things were not going as they should have been. We were impatient. Now they are saying we need to clean up our own mess while we are struggling to keep our men alive or get a government established. We right now need the UN and they are blowing us off. Their ability to do so makes me think maybe they are stronger than you give them credit. If they are weak, it is our fault as much as any. You can't deem an organization insignificant, bypass them, and then when it is convenient ask for their help. I find it hard to blame the UN for what they are doing at this point.

Till next time - thanks - Thomez

 

And I guess I should "now" start forgiving the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, the Mexicans, the Canadians and all these other countries who gave these guys more time to stash their weapons and figure out new ways to kill our boys when they got there (and, of course, more time to invite their 'friends' from all over the Middle East to "welcome them").

I will never forget what these countries tried to pull when this needed to be done QUICKLY and where they've been since the first time we told them to either crap or get off the pot........................and I certainly hope none of you do either. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

Thomez,

I am afraid that I am a little more critical of the UN and its participating countries. I feel that waiting longer for the UN to act in the Middle East, especially against arms storage by Hussein and other Middle East Leaders would have accomplished nothing more than to allow them to build a storage. Both the UN and US troops found all the materials needed to create biohazard weaponry stockpiled in various locations throught Iraq and surrounding areas. Giving the UN time to make up their minds would only have allowed the Iraqis the time needed to turn these materials into weapons. Hussein especially wanted this war and viewed it as his "Second Chance at opposing the Great American Threat" - CNN interview with Saddamn Hussein's cousin and former military advisor (August 2002). I believe that the only reason for the pacifist views of the other UN members is the strict fear of damaged commerce with the Middle East. Now that we have neutralized such a threat and they are in no danger of loosing any trade agreements, they see no necessity for them to act in restoring the area. Their copout of "you made the mess, now you clean it up" is only a way around the spending it would cause them. I believe that it was the wish of the entire UN council to see Iraq freed from its former government. However, until now, none of the member countries has been willing to risk the trade disembargos that could have resulted from an incomplete victory in the middle east.

~HoundDog

 

What are these mythical "new ways to kill our boys" ? I don't think they invented any weaponry in the past 10 years in Iraq, sorry. And remember how many soldiers actually died at the hands of the Iraqis this time? Far less than what have died since attempting to be peacekeepers.

What exactly did "these countries try to pull" ? You make accusations yet present nothing on your behalf. More info needed.


Hound Dog,

You said you were fearful of Iraq building a storage. Granted, they aren't allowed to have these things but really - is it any threat to the US if they have it in storage in a bunker in the sand? That is why the other counties seem to care less - they have no immenent threat to them from Iraq - they have no missles that can get here or there, etc. The worst thing that Iraq has done militarily was to invade it's neighboring country and then we got involved. Since then, their military hasn't done squat. I think that is the view of many countries - why should we care?

Here is something you said - "Both the UN and US troops found all the materials needed to create biohazard weaponry stockpiled in various locations throught Iraq and surrounding areas."

I imagine you have read this somewhere in the media. Just to let you know, that doesn't take much. I personally could make several of these "biohazard weapons" at home if I was so inclined, and they hadn't even done that. They had the materials to do so. That is like saying that they have the materials to build huge bombs because they imported 1000 bags of fertilizer. I'd just be careful in how much weight I put on that.

I can't say I agree that Saddam wanted this war. Maybe in the media leading up to it, but when things got close he was doing what he was told to do pretty regularly. I think he knew that his life and family were in danger if this got started and when realizing it was going to, he backpeddled a bit. That was how I took it at least.

I still believe that the UN members' policy is "you made the mess, you clean it up". I don't find that to be any kind of copout - it is just true. They have no justification to spend money to rebuild a country that they had nothing to do with the destruction of. It just isn't their responsibility, and few are going to come running with money to spend if they have no responsibility to do so. I don't see how you can expect, say ... Germany... to offer millions or billions of dollars to help rebuild Iraq - if I were them I would say "hell no, you are the ones that destroyed it. fix what you broke" .

I agree that probably every single UN council member wanted a change in power in Iraq. I doubt that it was about trade though, as most of the countries have little or nothing to do with Iraq in that respect. France is well known to be a big trade partner with Iraq, and from that standpoint it is reasonable for them to want things to remain stable there. I would say the lack of action from the other countries is more the result of a pacifist nature than an economic decision.

I'm not sure by what you mean when you say an "incomplete victory in the Middle East" - clarification please?

Thanks - Thomez

 

Thomez, I really enjoy this debate. It's nice to debate with someone willing to share intelligent commentary.


Now, there is a slight difference in you having the chemicals needed to produce a chemical bomb (I am a chemist for the EPA so I know a bit about this) and having a bunker containing five thousand four-inch canister missle housings (unused mind you),solid state rocket fuels, thirteen incubator refrigeration units (the kind commonly used in labs for bacteria cultures), and phospho lipid hydrocarbon matrix jelly (which can be used as a preservative medium for preventing overpopulation of bioorganisms). All this was found in just one bunker outside of Baghdād by UN inspectors in late July (MSN Aug 2003). Though Iraq was told to destroy all such weaponry facilities over a year ago, ones like this have still been found. Still think there's nothing to worry about?

As to the remarks of the countries of Europe having little or no trade with Iraq and the Middle East, this is purely false. 85% of European oil is imported from the Middle East with most of the other 15% coming from Russia. In fact, Russia is the only country in the UN that doesn't import a sound majority of its crude from the Middle Eastern nations.

By incomplete victory, I was making the point that many of the world powers trade frequently with Iraq and the other Middle East countries. If these powerful countries embarked on a military venture aiming at the overthrow of the Iraqi government (as the US has just succeeded in) and failed, the result would be a certain boycott of all participating countries causing the world's largest oil shortage EVER! This alone is enough to scare many of the powerful countries away from any conflict with Iraq. Now that the US has stepped in and done the "dirty work" they wanted but would not do themselves, they see no need to take part in restoration activites even though they have everything to gain from it. And yes, I do think it is their responsibility as this was originally a UN operation.

~HoundDog

 

Howdeeee! (I'm at school in the south, what do you expect? .. lol)

I really enjoy this too. Always liked a good civil discussion. (always - I'm stinkin 19..)

Back to the subject.

About the chemical/biological warfare capabilities. I'll submit that maybe they have more than they were allowed to have. I think the world has known this since the end of the Gulf War - hence the inspections stalled, cancelled, stopped, etc ... over and over again when things would get close to finding something like this. I agree that this needed attention by the UN, as they had messed around with for years. Something needed to give, such as the uninterfered inspections we had asked for for years. We won't know if this was going to happen because we finally resorted to violence first. Violence was probably necessary, Saddam seems to listen to nothing else. I still say it would have overall been more effective to be a little more patient and get the UN to do this dirty work. Think about the mess we are in now. If we don't get some help this is going to be a morale strain on our soldiers like we haven't seen since Vietnam.

The reason I say that I have personally never feared any action by Iraq is this - as you said, they had the materials to produce possibly some mean stuff (biological/chemical weapons). Point #1 is that we still haven't found that they did produce this stuff, or if we have it has been very very limited. Point #2 is that the threat to the US is practically nil from Iraq. If they have any way of doing something to the US it is through some kind of terrorist action. The way to protect from this is the same as we do against any other terrorist organization. Track their activity, keep them away from our people, and take action if we find out they are up to something. As far as we know Iraq had nothing planned - hell they didn't even have something to attempt to deliver to US soil!

Your quote: My quote: Notice I said Iraq, not the entire Middle East. Big difference there.

I don't think Iraq was putting out much oil. Saddam pretty much trashed everything to do with oil production/export there during the Gulf War and I don't know that they have gotten any funding to rebuild the industry. I think much more of it is the Saudis, Iran, Kuwait, etc. It is my understanding that Iraq was producing and exporting very little oil. I could be wrong there, I will admit I have no hard facts to point to. Check into it if you wish to. It's late and I gotta get up early [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Your quote: Now come on here, you are way smarter than that. You really think that anyone in the world feared that we would have ANY trouble overthrowing the Iraqi government? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

I again say that the inactivity of the other countries can be attributed to both a pacifist nature and the lack of personal threat to their respective countries. As far as their inactivity now....

Let's make an example. Say that .... Germany, not our strongest ally but one nonetheless, decided to overthrow the government of .... Nigeria. They do this without the support of the US nor the UN. After they completed the 3 day military action that it would take they attempt to put in a democratic government and keep peace. They are struggling doing so - now convince me that a US politician is going to gain support to send money and troops to Nigeria to help clean up Germany's mess that they made without our approval. Good luck, right? Remember, these politicians from other countries have to keep votes for themselves and their respective parties. It's a tough sell, isn't it? The public sure as hell doesn't feel bad for Germany.

Put that into proper perspective and I think it makes some sense.

 

Thomez's response to Blackballed:

".....What are these mythical "new ways to kill our boys" ? I don't think they invented any weaponry in the past 10 years in Iraq, sorry........."

The entire world knew BEFORE 1991 and the 'first' war that this "housecleaning" needed to happen (do you think that everybody was "shocked" that Saddam invaded Kuwait; or figured it was just a matter of time?.....and that was over 12 years ago). They also knew that the longer we all merely "threatened" to put a bullet in his head.........the longer this maniac would have to bunker himself in....... and the better 'prepared' he would be to wage guerilla warfare when we got there.

I think you are assuming the situation as it is today; like we never just went through the massive deployment (on two fronts, mind you) that we did. There was no guarantee that bombing these guys (especially when done 'strategically'...... without the massive psychological effect that could have been wrought through dropping MOABs on downtown Baghdad and elsewhere) was going to make the job of dragging these scum out of their rat holes and fortified positions, any easier.

The rest of the world knew this and DID NOT WANT TO SEND THEIR BOYS TO DIE ALONGSIDE OURS FOR PURELY SELFISH INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL REASONS.........And the people in those countries who didn't stand up and throw them out on their ear are "no different".

When I talk of "new ways to kill our boys"?

These nations KNEW that Iraq had amassed about as many small arms and explosives that they could purchase since and during their war with Iran.........have you seen the figures that have been used when compared with even OUR stockpile? If there have been more soldiers killed or wounded by this generation of even "remote" IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices)......in the past few years.......AND IN THIS SHORT OF A TIME SPAN...........I want to know where that battlezone was.

(Thomez):
"......And remember how many soldiers actually died at the hands of the Iraqis this time? Far less than what have died since attempting to be peacekeepers........"

Your figures are just plain bogus. At one time last week.....the deaths incurred during hostilities equalled the deaths sufferred afterwards..............NOT FAR LESS than that SHORT time period where all hell was breaking loose like it never had before. You make absolutely no point with this statement other than to fortify my position that putting a bullet in the head of those who need it is DIRTY BUSINESS..........and I thank God every day for each and every one of our brave men and women who are out there confronting these people and making darn sure it be known that anybody around them who'd like to act in the same manner?.......will meet the same fate.

(Thomez):
"......What exactly did "these countries try to pull" ? You make accusations yet present nothing on your behalf. More info needed........"

Here's some "info".......we are trying to rid the world of (mainly) Islamic fundamentalists who threaten our very existence. Accomplishing this, will be one heck of a lot more "politically incorrect and uncomfortable" than fighting "Germany" ever thought of being. Yet this is, and always will be. A WORLD WAR.

If any country has hesitated about helping us earlier or has been dragging their feet "now"?

It is best that the American people take note of this and never forget who our friends were when we needed them.

There are over 50 unguarded weapons caches right now in Iraq that the Democrats in our government are bitching about as a "threat" to our troops.............now isn't it funny how the Democrats and all these "fence sitting" countries are out there NOW trying to use the fact that we are fighting wars on two different fronts as an excuse to claim that we are doing a **** poor job at it? None of these people wanted a darn thing to do with ***any*** of this.......yet are now telling "MY" armed forces that "hey, we think you need some more PEOPLE over there that we can bitch about when they get killed or wounded!!!" [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

Give me a Chinaman, a German, a Frenchman or better yet, a RUSSIAN; to nervously sit outside that pile of weapons and wonder when the next RPG round might come in and blow him or the whole kaboodle up into the Iraqi sky................and then maybe I'll stop talking (but never, ever "forget") what these countries have done to a world alliance that we are now discovering just might never exist.........mutual threat or not.

 

I have a solution for all of these kids who happen to see the world a little 'differently" today.

Drag each and every one of them, along with their liberal teacher, down to a widowed or disabled veteran's house and make each and every one of them.............. LOOK THESE PEOPLE STRAIGHT IN THE EYE as they tell their story.

If that doesn't make an impression on these kids?.............Then God help us all.

 

And thank you for sharing your views.

First, you didn't come up with a "new way" but danced around it. Purchasing an old way from a neighboring country doesn't count.

Second, you completely danced around "what they tried to pull" as well by going far from what that question was related to.

Again, thanks for sharing your views.

Now lets let Hound Dog talk a little bit of rational sense before you send me over the deep end.

Edit: After having some more time to read your reply I will have to do one of my own. Will as soon as time allows.

I'd also like to tell you that about 40 more men have died since the so called end of the "war" than before. That is about 33% more during peacekeeping than during fighting. Definitely statistically significant.

 

Thomez,

I don't have much time for this post but two quick things. Yes, I do believe that some european powers questioned our ability to overthrow Iraq. We had no real idea going into this how many allies Iraq might have. Another point, how many people thought we would have any trouble liberating Vietnam? Put that in perspective!

As for your scenario with Germany overtaking Nigeria: I have no doubt whatsoever that the US would give funds to the restoration of Nigeria if we were to establish a trade agreement with the democracy to ensue. Look at WWII. We gave over 200 billion dollars to the restoration of Europe (which has never been paid back upon and never will) when it DEFINITELY wasn't our fault that it was destroyed by Hitler's forces. You spoke of France trading heavily with Iraq. We gave around 50 billion dollars to france alone. France was at teh forefront for military action by the UN and even stated that they had no opposition to US action in Iraq. However, when called upon now to help restore a government which could spell better trade for them, they backpeddle and claim its our fault. No, in fact they even give us a deadline to be out of the area! Now that's gall.

More later,

~HoundDog