Cost of War

by teejay 135 Replies latest social current

  • ThiChi

    "it's all about money".

    Well in fact, there is truth to this. Any Nation conducts business for their advantage (France is a very good example of this). As it should be.

    However, looking at history, the US has spent more "Money" than any other past world power for other Nations benefit. This too is a fact.

    One example is right after WWII, we had the bomb and could of literally ruled the world. However, Germany, Japan and other Nations today are a testament to the US?s benevolence, compared to past world powers.

    Where do you think you would be right now if Hitler?s Germany and Japan would have won? You would be turned into a lamp shade or working in a slave camp somewhere.........

    Notwithstanding, I have fath in the American people. I feel Bush will win, despite any tricks the liberal meida (like Dan Rather) tries to pull......

  • teejay
    the US has once again taken the lead of bringing democracy to Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. To not acknowledge the progress that has been made in these two countries, is mind-boggling.

    ... Regan was right....So too, Bush is pressing foreword with a proactive Geo-political strategy that will benefit the US and many other Nations.

    Bush spoke with vision when he said: "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life."



    "Bringing democracy to Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan"; "Regan was right"; "Bush is pressing foreword with a proactive Geo-political strategy... blah, blah, blah." Sheesh!!

    Help me remember something, ThiChi. What was the reason Bush gave as for why we were invading Iraq? I seem to have forgotten.

  • ThiChi

    TeeJay: here, posted agian, is the reason(s) Bush went to War::::

    Critics like you ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and return stolen property, "accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions." Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron.

    You want more? "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

    The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has the left also forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people. When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD. He talked about freedom. Those focusing exclusively on the WMDs are simply desperate, out-of-power people seeking to inflict any damage they can on Bush. What's shocking is that they're the same people who always honored themselves by speaking out in favor of human rights, yet they would've left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam's thugs rather than see them liberated by this president.

  • ThiChi

    Wow, look who wants Bush out too........

    Putin: Bush Re-Election Target of Iraq Attacks

    Monday, October 18, 2004

    DUSHANBE, Tajikistan ? Russian President Vladimir Putin ( search ) said Monday that terrorists are aiming to derail U.S. President George W. Bush's chances at re-election through their attacks in Iraq.

    "I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

    "International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

    Still, Putin didn't say which candidate he favored in the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.

    "We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people," he said. "I don't want to spoil relations with either candidate."

    Putin also noted his continuing disagreement with Bush on Washington's invasion of Iraq, which Russia strongly opposed as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

    "Russia was always against the military operations in Iraq," he said.

    Despite their differences, Bush and Putin have cooperated closely in the international war on terror, with Russia assenting to the deployment of U.S. forces in former Soviet Central Asia for operations in neighboring Afghanistan. In exchange, Washington has mostly looked the other way on Moscow's continuing war in breakaway Chechnya, which Russia alleges is being fueled by international terror groups.

    On his last visit to Central Asia in June, Putin appeared to be backing Bush's assertion that Iraq was a threat, saying at a summit in Kazakhstan that Russia had notified Washington about intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad.

    No further details were given, and Putin also said then that the warning didn't change Moscow's opposition to the Iraq war.

  • Abaddon

    Thi CHi

    Regarding the quote from Teddy, it is relevant, since our objectives are right for the US and the World.

    Our? Is that like 'them' or 'they'? What do you mean 'our'. Define the grouping of people you mean by 'our'. How large a group of people do you mean by 'our'? Is it the 20% of Americans who control 40% of the countries wealth? If not, who? We ain't talking about welfare mothers, are we?

    Explain how, if this group you define as 'our' is a minority in the USA or the world, how they can make a claim (as you do that) their objectives are 'right for the US and the World'?

    If you suggest that a minority is right and should be heeded against the will of the majority, then I think you are telling us all we need to know about your love of democracy.

    And did you include the following in your list of objectives that are 'right for the US and the World'?

    • The USA and UK supported a coup in Iran in 1953 where the democratically elected Mossadeq was replaced by the Shah. Mossadeq wanted to reduce the profits of Western oil companies from 88% to 25%, so Iran could beenfit more from it's own wealth in resources.
    • Decades of support for an undemocratic royal dictatorship in Jordan.
    • Decades of support for an undemocratic royal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
    • Backing Suharto from 1965 despite him killing hundred of thousands of Indonesians, supporting the 1975 invasion of East Timor by Indonesia (you've tried in the past to blame this on Islamic expansionism!) and continued support of Suharto despite years of human rights violations.
    • With the UK and France, vetoing two UN sanctions on military and nuclear collaberation arms embargoes to the apartheid reigeme in South Africa, and another calling for the assitance of the oppressed people of South Africa.
    • Backing Saddam Hussain, including supplying;
      • Bacillus anthracis, the cause of the often fatal disease, anthrax.
      • Clostridium botulinum, a toxin source.
      • Histoplasma capsulatum, a disease that attacks lungs, brain, heart and spinal chord.
      • Brucella melitensis, a bacteria that damages major organs.
      • Clostridium perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing illness.
      • Clostridium tetani, a bacteria causing tetanus
    • Support for Pol Pot.
    • Destabilisation of Nicargua; support for human-rights violating governments for 46 years, then imposing a trade embargo after a fair democratic election, then the whole disgusting insurgency run out of the US Embassy in Honduras, during which the Contras were encouraged to attack 'soft targets' rather than the army. The extent of its undercover actions undermining the democratic government, and the human rights violations were so sever the World Court find the USA guilty and fine them $17,000 million, which the USA refused to pay, and then vetoed an UN resolution calling on all governments to obey International law. That would cramp the US's styl;e a bit... In the ten years of US supported insurgency Nicaragua went from having the best social system in Central America to being a country with widespread illiteracy and malnuttition.

    ... 'right for the US and the World'? Don't make me laugh...

    Right for the commercial interests of the USA maybe, but right for the world? Right for its own people, even?

    The US have consistantly acted

    • aginst International law,
    • the USA's own founding principles,
    • and sometimes (Iran-Contra) against the will of the elected representatives of the USA itself.

    In addition they have vetoed UN resolutions like a 'prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction' and a 'prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons' (both in 1984).

    And only the richest Americans benefit from the USA's 'rape the world' foreign policy

    But it seems you support the US acting like a rouge state, violating International law at a whim, suppressing democracy, supporting the violation of human rights, all to better profit commercially, or to ensure its hegemony continues.

    Do you feel 'the ends justify the means'? If not how do you justify the means?

    I thought the 'Divine Mandate' was an out-moded excuse for ethnic cleansing? Are you claiming that god has given Bush a special mission, or America a special place in the world?

    Unfortunately Thi Chi you ignore the despicable record of the past and assume that the powers-that be in the States platitudes and justifications are valid. They are no more valid than those in the past which you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

    By it's actions the USA ensures (at this time) it will not be trusted as a world policeman. It's record is too inconsistant and it has violated human rights or supported the violation of human rights too often to have any credibility. It hyping the WomD claims to generate support for a rush invasion is just another example of its lack of credibility.

    America has done good things, and has greater potential to do good than any other country. But as long as it goes against world opinion, and is self-interesetd, and ignores International law, it moves from being world policeman to world bully.

    It will justify its actions on the basis of it being nice to those that let it get on with it, whilst if there's opposition to its aims it will strike out.

    People will support the police if they are fair, just and honest, be they a beat cop or a world power. People will not support hypocritical self-serving bullies.

    You seemingly can.

    But I don't really expect you to have a 'road to Damscus' moment...

  • lawrence

    Abaddon- RIGHT ON! You've got it straight. I doubt the scales will be lifted, but you tried (can count time). One character you left out of the wonderful buddies the U.S. has courted, General Noriega. That relationship went sour, he was kidnapped, and now nobody knows where he is. They say in a detetion center in Kendall, Fla., but nobody has heard from him. These guys sure do believe in "Manifest Destiny", or as you call it "Divine Mandate" and their role in that perspective. That wicked doctrine (Manifest Destiny) salves the conscience when getting rich off the killing and plundering, "hell, it's God's will for us to do it, and get rich." Bullshit!

  • teejay


    Our? Is that like 'them' or 'they'? What do you mean 'our'. Define the grouping of people you mean by 'our'. How large a group of people do you mean by 'our'? Is it the 20% of Americans who control 40% of the countries wealth? If not, who? We ain't talking about welfare mothers, are we?

    Explain how, if this group you define as 'our' is a minority in the USA or the world, how they can make a claim (as you do) that their objectives are 'right for the US and the World'?

    Excellent, excellent post, Abaddon.

  • ThiChi

    ""Our? Is that like 'them' or 'they'? What do you mean 'our'. Define the grouping of people you mean by 'our'. How large a group of people do you mean by 'our'? Is it the 20% of Americans who control 40% of the countries wealth? If not, who? We aren't talking about welfare mothers, are we? "" lol. You can't meet the logic test, so lets argue non-issues. Fine. Since we are a Republic form of government, not a Democracy, It is our elected leaders who make the decisions for the US. Notwithstanding a majority support our leaders on this as a single issue. The raddacal left is in the miniorty. The ladies and Gentlemen of the Armed Services support President 4 to 1 over Karry......To claim the "world" feels this way or that way is really unknowable and is a false claim. Their are Billions that were not "polled". I can tell you who this does exclude: "...those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat...."

  • Realist


    One example is right after WWII, we had the bomb and could of literally ruled the world. However, Germany, Japan and other Nations today are a testament to the US?s benevolence,

    nonsense! you needed germany as stronghold against communism in europe! and japan in the far east.

    benevolence? laughable!


    there is a difference between a civil war such as in ruanda and an aggressive attack on a sovereign country!

    also, there would have been much better ways to help the iraqi people than to first bomb them and starve them to death just so they can get LIBERATED afterwards.

  • frenchbabyface

    Yep Abaddon Excellent post ... ! Thanks ...

Share this