The Cost of War

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

— President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

The cost of war shows the cost of the second Iraq war in numbers, estimated from Congressional appropriations. Seeing the counter tick away tax payers money, makes me wonder whether the war was really necessary. Well, not really no – I decided on that a while ago.

I vividly remember the day Iraq was invaded, I wrote this in my journal:

[…] The result, will be a new age of terror in the western world—a macro scale guerilla war against an enemy that believes in “preventive wars”. – Journal Entry, March 18th 2003 – “So it has come to this…”

I truly, honestly hoped I would be proven wrong.

Just recently, a sad record was set in Iraq; more than 1000 coalition military casualties. Estimates at Iraqi casualties tenfold this number.

Casualties, precision strikes gone awry, post-war security miscalculations, kidnappings. When seeing the news, I think to myself—what is wrong with this world? How could someone like Bush be elected? Oh wait, he wasn’t.

Now the latest US election polls show a dead race between Bush and The Other Guy. Am I missing something here? Isn’t this the man who just ordered thousands of young men and women to their deaths, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis?

What will happen if he gets a second term, and how would you be explain this to your children?

33 thoughts on “The Cost of War”

  1. Hey Joen, it’s not all bad news. The American tax payer has invested billions of hard-earned dollars in the military machine. The good ol’ US of A emerges from the brink of a recession as a result and they acquire a vast new reserve of crude oil to boot.

    Pretty shrewd move on Dubya’s part, don’t you agree?

  2. Joen says:

    Pretty shrewd indeed—but wasn’t this a recession that started when Bush came to power? And is the economy even recovering? I’ve only heard about an all time high unemployment…

    I do recognize your sarcasm though. Indeed there was a “hidden agenda” to this war—and as I also discussed in my Fahrenheit 9/11 review, war in itself can be a purpose.

  3. Jemaleddin says:

    Joen – you’re using the word casualties wrong. It’s not just deaths, it’s injuries that prevent you from participating in a military endeavor. Officially:

    “Any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status—whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured.”

    There are over 1000 deaths, but also over 6000 combat-related casualties, and almot 17,000 non-combat related casualties. That’s 24,000 Americans who are out of commission, many permanently, and not including the Iraqis and coalition members who’ve died fighting with us, for us and against us.
    But yeah, all that oil is really coming in handy. Good thing crude isn’t at an all time high. Oh, and that the rest of the world probably doesn’t even care where we spent $20 Billion in oil revenues that have gone missing… Sigh. Irony just isn’t irony when it’s this easy.

  4. Well maybe there is a little bit of hope that the truth of what this war is about will come out. This illegal war should by rights – if we are to be even handed – see George Bush and Tony Blair tried for war crimes. It won’t happen of course because in the end none of what the US/UK does impacts upon anyone except for those whose skulls it smashes, not my family man, I want fewer taxes and cheep gas, and we recruited our marines from the bottom of the ladder so there won’t be any complaints there huh!

    http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/08/keizer.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661736.stm

  5. Joshua says:

    As an American and a supporter of the ‘other guy’ in this election, it’s frustrating to see that the race is a dead heat given the situation in this country. The problem is that many Americans have bought into the fear and lies, and that in general the US is an extremely polarized nation at this period in history.

    Besides the foreign policy that the Bush adminstration has followed, another scary issue lurks in the distance. If re-elected, we might see the total reshaping of the courts in this country as Bush puts in more conservative judges. Another term certainly means the appointment of at least one new Supreme Court justice, at which point I strongly believe that we will see a battle in this country to make abortion completely illegal, no matter the circumstance. The real people running the Republican Party aren’t the Arnold Schwarzenegger’s or Rudolph Guliani’s that they put up at the convention. They are the Ralph Reed’s (head of Bush’s re-election campaign and former head of the Religious Right), the Rick Santorum’s (bigoted Senator from Pennsylvania) and others, who do not want a pluralistic open society, but one that is only free for religious conservatives.

    The thought of a lame duck (meaning 2nd term without having to worry about re-election due to the 2 term limit), George W. Bush is about one of the scariest things I can think of right now.

  6. Joen, as far as I hear, both of the things you mention are true.

    The economy IS recovering, but it’s not creating any new jobs. Don’t ask me how.

    Joshua, I completely agree with you. The fact that Bush’ puppet masters get another 4 years and more power to insert their gool ol’ boy buddies into various positions of power is – for me – one of the most frightening prospects in the world right now.

    If you pick up a history book and read about how the NSDAP (nazi party) took over Germany and started WWII, you will see a lot of similarities to what is happening in america right now; The NSDAP got elected into the government due to a bunch of unhappiness and unemployment with a decent number of mandates, and started reworking the system from within – making it harder to get them out of power again. Then the main opponents were murdered and democracy outright removed.

    Today. people can be destroyed in much more subtle (and grey area legal) ways than outright murder, and the republicans have something that the nazi party didn’t (to my knowledge) have – almost endless funding due to corporate interests in their power.

    Also, their corporate backers own a substantial part of the media in the states. This helped right along by the fact that dubya and his people have all but closed the government agency that is supposed to prevent enormous media mergers.

    In other words: The government is backed by the most powerful propaganda system I have ever seen; one that forcefeeds manipulative garbage to an entire nation while telling them that they are the living in a nation that is the paragon of freedom.

    Obviously, any halfway intelligent person can see right through this, but this group of people constitutes a frighteningly small part of the population.

    It’s frightening when the listing of documented facts and 1% speculation sound like the unhinged ranting of some conspiracy theorist.

  7. Joen says:

    I simply have to work in the hack where I can give special medals to significant or noteworthy comments. You’d all get a medal, not because you agree with me, but because I’m so happy to see that there are still skeptical people around. If anything, misery loves company.

    Jemaleddin, you’re right, casualties also count those who are simply unable to continue. Unfortunately, this only makes the matter worse.

    Andrew, I made your text links into clickable links. The first of those two articles, the one with the Abu Ghraib scandal, simply adds to the ever building pile of dirt surrounding the war.

    What I find—mindboggling—is how anyone could still choose to honestly give their vote to a government that’s done all these things! It’s like bizarro world!

    Brian, indeed the propaganda machinery plays a big role in this. I remember seeing a spot on danish television that showed clips of the US war coverage. It was like watching a Wrestling match! In a booming voice: Showdown Iraq – The time is running out for Saddam. All the while, huge brushed metal letters clashing together. It was a farce. When seeing things like these, and then hearing people complain about Fahrenheit 9/11 being propaganda, I’m once again reminded of what my grandfather used to say: Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.

  8. pick up a history book and read about how the NSDAP (nazi party) took over Germany and started WWII, you will see a lot of similarities to what is happening in america right now

    Yikes. I’m as cynical, bitter and angry as the rest of you. However, I think comparing the US Govt. to the Nazi party is a little extreme.

    Let’s not forget, at this crucial point in America’s (and the world’s) history, that the American people have to power to CHANGE ALL OF THIS.

    I only hope that apathy, ignorance and brainwashing don’t prolong that nutter’s tenancy in the White House any longer.

    Christ, even Nixon was better than this! 😉

  9. Joen says:

    Actually, I don’t think Brian was comparing the US Govt. to the nazi party, rather compared some of the changes that have been going on in the US since 2001 to the changes that happen when a nation succumbs to fascism.

    In fact, if you look at the definition, there’s more than one deja vu…

    An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.

    Try and replace “nationalism” with “patriotism”, and “communism” with “terrorism”.

  10. Matt Warren says:

    If you all feel like your freedoms are suppressed (such as what?), and want to be so brazen as to try to compare our government with Nazism, then instead of just whining about it, explain how you come to your conclusions. How exactly are your freedoms being suppressed?

    The more I hear from Bush-malcontents the less I understand their though process. It’s like the current issue of the assault weapons ban. People use its expiration as fuel to their Bush-bashing fire. I cringe every time I hear someone say that “more Columbines will happen now.” Anyone who pays a small amount of attention will realize that the weapons used in Columbine were either a) stolen, or b) not assault weapons. A ban on the weapons doesn’t make it any harder for criminals to get the weapons. Black market, anyone? If you look even closer, you’ll realize that the distinction between “assault” weapons and “normal” weapons is a fine line. Usually people conjure up images of huge machine guns when they hear “assault” weapons. Truth is, the same weapons have been on store shelves for years. Now that the ban has expired, they may now be sold with things like folding stocks or flash suppressors. They’re still the same weapons though, just different accessories.

    It seems like Bush hating people are extremely short-sighted, focusing only on the hear and now rather than the future as well. Quick to jump to conclusions and judge rather than think things through.

    Besides, where would the country be with Kerry in power? No one ever wants to tackle that question…

  11. Jonathan (and Matt) I am not comparing the government of the US with the nazis.

    I am just pointing out the similarities with how the NSDAP came into power in Germany, way back when.

    I don’t think even the worst right wing american government would venture into flat out systematic genocide. Abortion ban and retraction of any progress in gay rights, yes. Selling off our childrens futures by hollowing out the education system to make a quick buck, yes. Genocide, no.

    Some of the political preconditions and methods of getting into more power and staying there are similar. Frigtheningly so. The end result may be different.

  12. Joen says:

    Matt,

    I’ll try and answer all your questions to the best of my ability. Seeing as you’re not subscribed to comments, I hope you’ll actually read this reply.

    You ask how are our freedoms suppressed.

    First of all, I should note that I am not American, I’m Danish (northern Europe). As such, the USA Patriot Act has no effect on me.

    Did you read the Patriot Act? If not, you can read it now. I don’t think you’ll be reading all of it, so here’s a shorter summary. The gist of it is, that the government can investigate and wiretap pretty much anyone they want to. Some think this is necessary, but can you argue that this is not a suppression of personal freedom?

    You mention an assault weapons ban? Never mentioned it in this article, so let’s discuss that another time.

    It seems like Bush hating people are extremely short-sighted, focusing only on the hear and now rather than the future as well. Quick to jump to conclusions and judge rather than think things through.

    This is word against word at best. Suffice to say I could say the very same thing about Bush supporters.

    Besides, where would the country be with Kerry in power? No one ever wants to tackle that question?

    Disagree—is this not the discussion that is going on right now? While the polls favor Bush, some half the country favors Kerry. That means they think Kerry can do it better than Bush, does it not? I fail to see how that is not “tackling the question”.

  13. Chris says:

    Matt,

    I can understand how an American can have qualms with some aspects of John Kerry (especially when information, like his career in the senate, is distorted and skewed by negative campaign ads). However, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for George W. Bush.

    His party, his base, is far more conservative than they’d like you to believe. His administration is secretive, adversarial, and discounts any criticism (with critics and those with legitimate concerns even being branded unpatriotic by some!).

    His policies, his administration, his empty promises are all heavily veiled to the average American who identifies with the “straight-shooter”. Yet this average American, whose vote is so coveted by both candidates, is aligning their ideologies to a faux moderate candidate in Bush. True, nearly every politician must become somewhat moderate to attract a majority of voters, but here, it is laughable. The economy is getting stronger, and good jobs are being added? That simply is not true! Iraq is under control? Offensive! Americans having more access to health care? I know first-hand this is horribly untrue!

    This man also uses dirty tactics to win elections. Remember the smear campaign in North Carolina against McCain in 2000? Atrocious! And this monkey goes from campaign stop to campaign stop, not to mention national TV, talking about Kerry’s “voting for Iraq funding, and then against it.” What is so hard to understand about this? The man voted for the 87 billion for use in Iraq (and elsewhere) when it was going to be subsidized by means he and others agreed with (example: money taken from wealthier Americans, that comprise their tax cuts). When it was passed, the funds actually came from every American, and stripped money away from domestic programs and policy initiatives. But do the aides, the commentators, the campaign strategists, and Bush himself tell the whole story? Of course not. Kerry voting against defense spending? Cheney, then secretary of defense, urged everyone to vote against things like the B-2, and monolith defense programs that were geared towards a Cold War showdown.

    Can we imagine America with Kerry at the helm? You know what? He wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’d be a hell of a better America than with George W. Bush. And there’s room for some conservatives to agree with me on that- if Kerry won, he’d have to keep some of the post-9/11 defense measures, programs, agencies, etc in place (dept. of homeland securtity, intelligence czar, etc). It would be really hard for Kerry to be “soft on terrorism”, with this new infrastructure in place. It could just be used more wisely.

  14. Matt Warren says:

    So many people complain that jobs are outsourcing to overseas markets. Why is this? Because there’s no incentive for businesses to stay in America. Corporate taxes are so high in America that the only feasible way to cut costs is to outsource. Now, in places like China, costs for businesses are getting higher, and companies are moving to Vietnam to cut costs even more. All the business incentives rest overseas, not in America. Without domestic business, our economy suffers greatly. The Bush tax cut was designed to add an incentive for businesses to stay in America by giving them a tax break. But now Kerry wants to cut everyone’s taxes? If the government is making less money, how do they plan to counteract the deficit, much less fund any of their new programs?

    The recession of our economy started with Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, the blame is passed to the successor, in this case Bush. The economy was bad when Bush took office. I can’t see why someone can logically attribute this to Bush. Who has more bearing on such things: a two-term president or one who just took office? During Bush’s administration, the economy has been growing. In fact, its growing at the fastest rate it has in nearly two decades! Unemployment? Across the board, in almost every demographic, unemployment rates have greatly decreased over the past year. If you need proof, check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics page at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm for a huge amount of details.

    Bush is fixing the problems our country is facing. A major part of these problems were caused by the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The process of recovery is slow, but steady. Bush is focused on fixing our current problems and then moving forward, while Kerry just wants to move forward. You can’t do this. It’s like building a house on a crumbling foundation. Take America’s energy problem for example. Bush wants to fix it by updating outdated laws and cleaning up dirty energy sources, like coal, THEN fund research on new energy as well as ridding our country of its dependency on foreign oil. Kerry on the other hand just wants to “explore new energy sources.”

    Wouldn’t you much rather fix problems with solutions rather than simply change?

  15. Joen says:

    Chris,

    Beautifully said, I agree wholeheartedly. If I could vote in the US election, Kerry wouldn’t be my first choice either, but right now, the idea of another term for Bush plainly scares me.

    Matt,

    Chris’ replies deserve a second reading, as they do in fact address several of your points. As such, I will only say this: do you really, honestly, think that Bush has handled his term well enough to deserve a second term? War in Iraq, his foreign policy, his economic policy? The bulk of the western world outside of USA is worried. The middle east is inflamed more than ever. Oh yes, to quote a journalist – it’s worse than you think.

    If you do think he did well, if you do think he is honestly the best for America, then I respect that. I just, honestly, cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would think this.

  16. Jeff says:

    It saddens me everyday knowing that Saddan Hussien isn’t in power anymore…Just think, he was actually helping America in the war on terrorism. He was filling mass graves everyday with muslims. An estmated 300,000. Wow, 300,000…even if you split that in half, that leaves the very possibilty that 150,000 were potenial terroist. Damn Bush, Damn him to hell. Thank God he hasn’t turn his sights on the country of Sudan. I say screw the over 1 million who are homeless and screw the over 30,000 who were butchered by arabs in Dufar…I damn sure don’t want my hard earned tax dollars helping anyone else but Americans. I say let the people of the world suffer under brutal dictators who rape murder and torture their own people. Screw’em…

    Now, back to reality… I can’t believe some people on this planet. They (some of you) would rather see the status quo… We as a race know that genocide is happening right now. And half on this planet want to see something done about and the other do not. Truely sad…

    What in the hell do you think was happening in Iraq? Screw the whole WMD bullshit… 300,000 dead Iraqi’s in mass graves…What in the hell is wrong with some of you? How can you sleep at night knowing that you support the idea of Saddam hussein remaining in power. So he can continue to fill mass graves with women and children with bullet holes in the back of their heads? If you want to see an example of what Saddam Hussein did to his own people…take a look here… [snip! Ed.

    Hope you rest well, knowing that is what you would rather see continue…

    So, let me see, it’s ok and “legal” to commit genocide? But it’s “illegal” to stop it? Just want to make sure I had it right, so when I go out and buy that brand new assault weapon, I’ll have peace of mind knowing I could wipe out my whole neighborhood and some of you would do nothing about it.

  17. Joen says:

    Jeff,

    You’re missing the point here.

    It looks as though you’re claiming that anyone that was against the war, supported Saddam in power. Did you actually read the article? I’ll repeat, just for you: “Seeing the counter tick away tax payers money, makes me wonder whether the war was really necessary.”

    Necessary.

    That does not mean I wan’t Saddam in power. That means I truly believe there were other means than war, to get Saddam out of power.

    Just think, he was actually helping America in the war on terrorism. He was filling mass graves everyday with muslims.

    So muslim is now equatable with terrorist? I went to school with muslims. Just like christians, they are religious people. They just believe Allah was gods profet, not Jesus. How does that make one a terrorist?

    By the way, I’m not American, so in a way, I could care less what you do with your tax money. I do care, that Bush is making this world a less safe place to be, by fighting mis-calculated, ill-conceived wars.

    I don’t think we should just “sit back” and “enjoy the status quo”, but did you stop up and think about other solutions than war? This is at the very core of my anti-war stance. War is the absolutely last resort, it is what you do when every last other option has been tried.

    The problem is, this is a point that cannot be argued. You can quote many an article on personal tragedies in Iraq, you can find countless news items that support your opinion (as can I!) but in the end, this is a point I doubt we can ever agree on. Because the war is happening, and it cannot be stopped until it is over. We can never see what could have been instead.

  18. Jeff says:

    so, what would have been your solution to remove Saddam from power? Or let me ask you this, What would have been your solution to remove Hitler from power? or let me ask you this, what would you have about Slobodan Milosevic?

    Hitler = 10 million dead jews

    Saddam = 300,000 dead Iraqi’s

    I want to hear a solution from someone.

    Sometimes war is the solution, like it or not. I will support any war on this planet if I know the end result will be freeing people who are being butchered from their dictator.

    Again, I would like to hear your solution…

  19. Jeff says:

    “By the way, I?m not American, so in a way, I could care less what you do with your tax money. I do care, that Bush is making this world a less safe place to be, by fighting mis-calculated, ill-conceived wars.”

    “tax money.”

    So then, why do you mention “Seeing the counter tick away tax payers money” Your not American, why should you care? Is that just an excuse for you to justify your feelings against Saddam Hussein being removed from power?

    “ill-conceived wars.”

    So I guess you support the Taliban as well???

  20. Joen says:

    So you played the Hitler card, did you? I was expecting that to appear sometime soon—it’s always the easy way out. Godwin’s law:

    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

    I have a hard time taking such comparisons seriously. Hitler and Saddam have as little to do with each other as Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks. For the very same reason, I do not compare the current state of the Iraq war, with the Vietnam war.

    As for a solution, how about “Let the weapons inspectors do their job. Don’t initiate a war prematurely. Explore sanctions and diplomatic options. Go to war only if all other options are exhausted” .

    Were all other options exhausted? Was the war really a well-calculated move?

  21. Joen says:

    I recieved your second comment only after having written the first reply.

    Jeff, please. I said I could care less, but I do care. Why else would I write about it? The US economy has an impact on the global economy, thus my economy.

    Support the Taliban? Why do you bring that up? When did disagreeing with the second Iraq war become synonymous with supporting the Taliban regime? Can we please stay on topic?

  22. Matt Warren says:

    Jeff wasn’t the first one to bring up Hitler/Nazis. That was done long ago by someone with the anti-war viewpoint.

    Joen,

    You say that we should have “let the weapons inspectors do their jobs.” The problem was, they weren’t doing their jobs, which is why this whole thing began. The US had intelligence that pointed to WMD. The UN inspectors were being babies and NOT doing their jobs, and Hussein was, as mentioned, a terrible and cruel dictator. How do you stop that? You have to understand that we’re dealing with people that understand nothing other than an equal opposing force. It’s like the playground bully. You can beg and plead him to death not to take your milk money, but he does anyway until you use force. Like it or not, force just has to be used some times. We may not enjoy it…I know I certainly don’t, but you have to make the tough decisions sometimes, and that’s exactly what George W. Bush has done. How do you propose we could have stopped Saddam from killing his own people? We certainly couldn’t have talked him out of it…

    Also, is it impossible to rule out that Saddam moved his weapons into hiding? He would have had ample time to do so considering everyone in the UN wanted to pussyfoot around doing their jobs. They found MIGs buried out in the Iraqi dessert…if they were hiding that, what else might there be? (Buried MIGs reference)

  23. Matt, I am interested in hearing why you think I have an “anti-war viewpoint”?

    Jeff, I think you should try to drop the whole “if someone disagrees with me, it means they support terrorism and love the taliban” approach.

    If someone disagrees with the motives for fighting someone, it doesn’t mean they condone that someones actions.

    For example, if Joen thinks I (his friend) should not smack mr Smith (who Joen dislikes) in the mouth because I think he is ugly, it doesn’t mean Joen likes mr Smith. It just means that he doesn’t want his friend to be an asshole, hitting people without reason.

  24. Joen says:

    Matt,

    “They weren’t doing their job”. Certainly that depends on your point of view, doesn’t it? If “not doing their job” means they didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, isn’t it possible, just possible, that there weren’t any WMDs at all?

    Regarding the efficiency of the weapons inspectors, David Kay, former weapons inspector, certainly thought otherwise:

    A great deal has been accomplished by the team, and I do think … it important that it goes on and it is allowed to reach its full conclusion. In fact, I really believe it ought to be better resourced and totally focused on WMD; that that is important to do it.

    As for US intelligence pointing to WMDs, are you referring to what was explained in Powells presentation, Iraq – Failing to Disarm? Much of that (as mentioned in my other article), was later withdrawn or contradicted. Some of it was even forged.

    How does one stop the playground bully?

    I know war is sometimes necessary. There have been a number of wars which I completely supported, and while I consider myself against war, that does not mean I am against all wars. While it would be to generalize a bit, one could say I was against “unprovoked, preventive wars”. Certainly the UN security council (who knows more about war than any of us) declared that there was no need for war …. YET. Kofi Annan recently said the war was illegal. I am certain, that they don’t jump to such conclusions easily. They must have truly thought there were other options than war, as do I. As do millions of demonstrators world wide. Can we all be wrong? Yes. But flat-out wrong? I don’t think so.

    The war was initiated prematurely. The weapons inspectors should have been allowed to reach conclusions. Additionally, the war was miscalculated. Had the war been supported by the UN security council, I would have trusted that all diplomatic options were exhausted. I would have trusted they knew what they were doing, and yes, I would have fully supported the war.

    The problem, and the very cause for all these discussions, is that it was not supported by the UN. I do not trust that the “coalition of the willing” know what they are doing.

  25. Jeff says:

    “As for a solution, how about ?Let the weapons inspectors do their job. Don?t initiate a war prematurely. Explore sanctions and diplomatic options. Go to war only if all other options are exhausted? .”

    12 years later and 17 violated UN resolutions??? Saddam also kicked out the inspectors in the 90’s…… And only when America was knocking at his door did he let them back in…only to start playing the cat and mouse game all over again again. And history shows what that led to…I mean really, you don’t seem that stupid.

    “Support the Taliban? Why do you bring that up? When did disagreeing with the second Iraq war become synonymous with supporting the Taliban regime? Can we please stay on topic?”

    Afgan and American war = war

    Iraq and American war = war

    Afgan, Iraq and American war = “wars”

    you stated = ?ill-conceived wars.?

    I am staying on the subject….

    “For example, if Joen thinks I (his friend) should not smack mr Smith (who Joen dislikes) in the mouth because I think he is ugly, it doesn?t mean Joen likes mr Smith. It just means that he doesn?t want his friend to be an asshole, hitting people without reason.”

    That’s a good one…. 🙂

    Let me modify that a little…

    For example, if Joen thinks I (his friend) should not remove Saddam Hussein (who Joen dislikes) from power because I think he is filling mass graves with innocent Iraqi’s, it doesn?t mean Joen likes Saddam Hussein. It just means that he doesn?t want his friend to be an asshole, removing dictators without reason.

    “The problem, and the very cause for all these discussions, is that it was not supported by the UN. I do not trust that the ?coalition of the willing? know what they are doing.”

    The same UN that’s letting genocide continue right now in Sudan….? Remember…they gave the Sudan government 30 days to stop this. Guess what, It’s been 60 days….30 days after the deadline. And it is still going on, with no end in sight….

    1.5 million homeless, over 30,000 slaughtered.

    I will fight until my last drop of blood before I allow the United Nations to have any roll in what my country does on this planet.

    As for the Hilter and Saddam comparsion…I see no difference. Hilter gassed 10 million jews… Saddam gassed 30,000 kurds. Click on the link to view… [snip! Ed.

    Saddam invaded 2 countries… Iran and Kuwait. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to blow innocents is cafe’s and buses. Saddam’s son’s raped, tortured and murdered innocent Iraqi’s… Click on the link to view (if you have the balls to view the truth) [snip! Ed.

    Saddam Hussein had WMD’s… He used them 3 times, once on the Iranians and twice on the kurds. I’m convinced he moved them to Syria. All you need is just half of a brain to figure that one out.

    And one more thing…. For 8 years before Bush even took office, Everyday America heard the same thing from Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry, etc. “Saddam has WMD’s and is a threat to his people and the world.”

  26. Jeff says:

    oh, one more thing about your 1 million anti-war protestor remark….

    The population of the USA is 294,399,897 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

    there’s about 140 million in America alone that supports the war (s) I’m quite sure it’s safe to say another 1 billion around the world supports Saddam being gone.

    That’s not even including the 25 million Iraqi’s that are glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. I could go on and on….

    So I see the 1 million anti-war protestors as being 1 million idiots coming out of the woodwork. These are the same idiots that are screaming “Save the Trees” while holding wood and paper protest signs.

  27. Chris says:

    Jeff and Matt,

    I’m horribly sorry I’ve been so busy this week- because I could have stopped you both from polluting Joen’s website with your deplorable logic, and pointless comments.

    My all-time favorite was “to hell with the WMDs”. In the future, please spare me the chore of reminding you W-H-Y the United States congress was lied to about the rationale for the war. It was the WMDs, and solely the WMDs. The humanitarian reasons were brought out AFTER policy-makers questioned not only the presence of WMDs, but the threat to the United States from the supposed arsenal. Weren’t you paying attention then? I was. Think Kerry’s a flip-flopper? The president and his administration have changed the rationale for Iraq over a dozen times since the start of the war. WMDs/Humanitarian/Beacon of Democracy/God-given right to be free/WMDs (we’ll find’em, …honest)/Freedom/Profit for American companies/Threat to America/WMDs (we hope)/Democracy/etc/etc/etc. Do you listen to the president’s radio addresses? Do you watch his speeches, and those of his cabinet, in comparison with world events?

    Innocent Iraqis? How about innocent Chinese, Libyans, North Koreans, Saudis, Cubans, Haitians, etc. Please spend some time at your local library before you come on Joen’s web site with your drivel, thank you.

    What is the solution to Saddam Hussein? It’s a hard question- I spend more time thinking about global terrorist networks than I do about dictators. I was more focused on solving the Al-Queda dilemma, just like your buddy “W” was from 9/11/01 until 12/01. And the answer to that dilemma is not a miscalculated war in Afghanistan. Here’s a little picture of the aftermath of the war against the Taliban, which was not fully saw to fruition, especially because of the Iraq focus: – warlords, brigands, kidnappers and terrorists now control every part of the country except the capital city, and the areas where warlords have ceded control to U.S. forces…temporarily.

    By the way, can you tell me why the hunt for Osama is gaining publicity during election time, but all but a few dozen Taliban and Al-Queda members were allowed to escape in the Tora Bora incursion, when they were completely surrounded by U.S. and Pakistani forces?

    Back to Iraq- has it been a suitable allocation of the United States’ resources? How many soldiers that have served there would answer “yes”? Would those be some of the countless marines that face desertion charges, because they refuse to sign up and go back?

    Bush’s economic policies creating jobs? Jobs on the rise? When you point these things out, do you take a look at WHAT KIND OF JOBS they are? They are low-paying jobs in various service industries. Wow. I believe LL Cool J said it best “Don’t Call it a Comeback”.

    I ask YOU to face reality. Search your feelings, you know them to be true.

    Btw, the Iraq war is not equivocal to the war in Afghanistan. ONLY the administration and a portion of the confused followers still believe the on-again, off-again link between Saddam and Al-Queda.

    Btw, here’s an interesting tidbit of info for you. Saddam has had more proven ties to Def. Secretary Rumsfeld, and fmr U.S. Presidents, and received more biological weapons from our country, than any contact with Al-Queda whatsoever. Every single claim made by the Bush administration has turned out to be false, regarding an Iraq-Al Queda connection. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Another aside- Al-Queda and Iraq’s majority come from two very different Islamic backgrounds. Not to mention, Saddam was a secular ruler, although he recently “found religion” later in his dicatatorship. It didn’t stop him from suppressing freedom of religion in his country. So basically, the Bush administration wants people to think- or rather, to be ignorant of- thousand-year-old rifts between the two groups that divide them.

    ack. the list of deception by this administration goes on and on. Pick any brush you want- the portrait that emerges is a president unfit to be one.

  28. Jeff Swanson says:

    Did Saddam Hussein gas the the Kurds? Did Saddam Hussein Gas the Iranians?

    American Jobs? Our country is being over run by illegal aliens… They’re being taken…Or maybe you should ask Sen. John Kerry’s wife were the jobs are going. Why don’t you do a little research yourself about John Kerry’s wife…and her little hometown company. Here are some numbers for you as well…

    Unemployment rates during the 4th year under Clinton = 5.6

    Unemployment rates during the 4th year under Bush = 5.4

    Source: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

    “Innocent Iraqis? How about innocent Chinese, Libyans, North Koreans, Saudis, Cubans, Haitians, etc. Please spend some time at your local library before you come on Joen?s web site with your drivel, thank you.”

    Exactly…but if the USA was doing something about it, you would bitch as well…of course, if there was a democrat in office everything would be fine.

    Here is something for you…

    Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia – good?

    Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq – bad?

    Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia – good?

    Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq – bad?

    Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia – good?

    Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad?

    Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good?

    Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator – bad?

    Clinton bombs Chinese embassy – good?

    Bush bombs terrorist camps – bad?

    Clinton commits felonies while in office – good?

    Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit – bad?

    No mass graves found in Serbia – good?

    Mass graves found in Iraq – bad?

    Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton – good?

    Economy on upswing under Bush – bad?

    Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden – good?

    World Trade Centers fall under Bush – bad?

    Clinton says Saddam has nukes – good?

    Bush says Saddam has nukes – bad?

    Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq – good?

    Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad?

    Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton – good?

    Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan – bad?

    Milosevic not yet convicted – good?

    Saddam turned over for trial – bad?

    “thousand-year-old rifts”
    No shit, problem is…that rift has now opened up, now covering the whole planet.

    “received more biological weapons from our country”

    Now wait a sec, before you said that bush lied to congress about WMD’s, but now you are saying he (Saddam) did indeed have them??? You can’t say we sold them to Saddam Hussein then turn around and say he doesn’t have them. Which is it? You are starting to sound like John Kerry…. Oh, check out what John Kerry thought about Saddam Hussein…Take a listen for yourself. This is the same shit we heard from Democrats during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. You must be missing a few brain cells. While you tuned in after 9/11…I’ve been aware since 1984 (when I finished High School) and later after college.

    http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

    And maybe you should go back and do a little checking yourself…because like I said before…Clinton and Gore and the rest of the liberals in this country said the same exact shit that Bush said about WMD’s in Iraq. Have you been smoking to much pot or something? Or are you just to young remember 5 years ago.

  29. Jeff Swanson says:

    oh, and by the way…My reasons for supporting the war in Iraq were not on the grounds of WMD’s. It was humanitarian. But, you acting like a classic liberal seem to think my reasons were for the other. Which is really funny, because you know nothing about me. And what are your thoughts on the genocide being carried out right now in Sudan? That the United Nations is doing nothing about. Should America take the lead and go in and stop it? Or should we just sit on the sidelines and watch it take place? Like the rest of the planet is doing…… You know Saddam Hussein filled mass graves to the tune of 300,000 (and growing) The slaughter going on in Sudan is only 30,000 or so, with over a million forced from there homes… I guess the world doesn’t need to get involved unless the totals reach a million or so deaths. Truely sad….

  30. Joen says:

    When to close a thread? I want to, now. I cannot accept name-calling and mud slinging of this magnitude.

    Yet, this debate is not yet over, and it is still interesting. There is still cause for discussion.

    But can we please keep the discussion civil?

  31. Chris says:

    Jeff, nice try. Before I ready myself for work (where I will make more money than you, and do something far more interesting with better opportunities in the future), I must attempt to right your wrong.

    You too make assumptions about ME. Classic liberal? And you think I supported Clinton 100% on everything? Jeff, logic and truth don’t play partisan politics. Showing me what Clinton has done in his presidency (if I take your “facts” at face value) is worthless. Oh, btw, missions in former Yugoslavia were implemented with several nations. There’s one difference there. You might want to examine those before you post- the differences, that is. It makes you look bad.

    “oh, and by the way?My reasons for supporting the war in Iraq were not on the grounds of WMD?s.” Jeff, I don’t care what YOUR reasons were. Congress was approached with the administration’s reasons- and it was WMDs.

    “And what are your thoughts on the genocide being carried out right now in Sudan?” Again, you fail to see the difference. If military action was implemented, it would be for a clear reason, with a clear outcome – the cessation of violence, of genocide. Where is the clear outcome, the “end game”, in Iraq? Where is the lone reason for going in? Where was the honesty in the sales pitch?

    “Now wait a sec, before you said that bush lied to congress about WMD?s, but now you are saying he (Saddam) did indeed have them????” No, Jeff. When Saddam was given the ingredients, by the Reagan administration, to make biological weapons, it was in the early 80s. When the Earth makes one full swing around the star called the sun, we call it a year. More than twenty of these “years” have passed since then. Therefore, I implied that he DID have ingredients to make biological weapons, twenty years ago. Before you can assume I was implying he does now, you must disqualify these things: – did he have the capability to incorporate them into weaponry, from circa 1980 until 2002? – would he have the the stores of biological agents still?

    And you mention the gassing of the Kurds. Yes, truly terrible. Tell me, though, Jeff, why didn’t the U.S. government stop Saddam then? If we knew he had OUR weapons…AT THE TIME (again, not necessarily in 2002), and he had used them to murder people, why was no action taken? Well, if you’re a student of history, as you say, you will answer that he was a U.S. pawn, being played against the Ayatollah in Iran. But suddenly, in 2002, Bush jr. makes a marked change in U.S. policy, by leaving Al Queda out of reference, and putting Iraq into the “Axis of Evil” (that phrase alone warrants an impeachment). Every speech thereafter includes Iraq, but the inevitable alarms are raised. “What does Iraq have to do with 9/11???”. The administration starts incorporating a connection in every speech thereafter. What’s the motivation for Iraq? I dunno, cuz they keep …..are you ready? ………..flip-flopping.

    Jeff, I do not smoke pot. Nor do I support John Kerry. And I do have quite a few brain cells. One finds they must, to live.

  32. Jeff Swanson says:

    “(where I will make more money than you, and do something far more interesting with better opportunities in the future)”

    wow, you’re a true dumbass…Where in the hell did that statement come from??? I’ve got the best job in he world and make great money..But what does that have to do with anything…..

    Don’t worry Joen, I will no longer debate with a 5 year old…

  33. Joen says:

    Indeed, this debate is over.

    There were interesting points in this discussion, thank you all for participating.

    I’m sorry it derailed, but when discussing sensitive issues like this, emotions are sure to run high.

    I hope we’re all a little wiser, and that we can agree to disagree.

Comments are closed.