Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Costs of war

March 27, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Rubis' letter of March 22. I believe perpetuating an error committed five years ago only continues to compound the problem. The CIA, before the invasion, informed the Bush administration they had no evidence linking al-Qaida to Iraq and was ignored. Therefore, the natural deduction is the invasion opened the door for al-Qaida and we are responsible.

So here we are five years after "mission accomplished," 4,000 dead Americans, no weapons of mass destruction, a trillion-dollar debt and a deeper recession. The Arab world sees our continued occupation as no intention of leaving and provides al-Qaida with a fine recruitment tool. Remember perception of the truth is often more important than the truth.

Unlike Mr. Rubis, I see an organized withdrawal as helping our negative world perception especially with the Muslim world and Europe. As far as his statement that withdrawal would dishonor Americans who died, does that sound familiar? Sounds like what we heard about withdrawing from Vietnam where 58,000 Americans and a million Vietnamese died after eight years.

Also, no one is talking about how we are going to pay for this never-ending war, with recession, unemployment and many cuts in social programs. This country is being driven into bankruptcy. We have restored democracy in Iraq and we have been very altruistic, but charity begins at home, and it is time Iraq stood on its own and for our government to start paying more attention to its own citizens!

Craig Tucker

Judy Northway,

Lawrence

Comments

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

I see an organized withdrawal as hurting our perception with the Muslim world. It will show that we are weak and that Islamofacists can defeat us militarily. A far greater recruiting tool will be the message that the western powers can be defeated. A withdrawal in Iraq will only lead to stiffer resistence in Afghanistan. After all, if they pushed us out of one country, they'll be even more confident they can push us out of another.

Very simply put, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1989, what was the world perception then? The world saw them leaving with their tail between their legs, and bin Laden used the victory as a major recruiting point saying that they were responsible not only for winning the war but for the collapse of the Soviet Union. People are attracted to strength, and pushing us out of Iraq will be a major victory for our enemies, and a powerful recruiting tool. Remember, perception of the truth is often more important than the truth.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

Would somebody please define "winning" for me? And don't just say "defeating the terrorists." What does that mean? This is what bothers me most about this whole conversation. I've yet to see a clear vision of what winning means.

OnlyTheOne 6 years, 8 months ago

You can't defeat a terrorist or radical extremist. It doesn't matter how many you kill - There'll always be another to take their place. Even Bin Laden would have a successor. There's only one way this can, not "will" but "can," be resolved - one side loses totally. There's no middle ground in their minds. Why can't people understand that?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"I see an organized withdrawal as hurting our perception with the Muslim world. It will show that we are weak and that Islamofacists can defeat us militarily"

Given that remaining will just confirm that we (well, you and your ilk, anyway) are violent and stupid, I'm willing to take the risk that withdrawing will damage your already low self-esteem, k778.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

Would somebody please define "winning" for me? And don't just say "defeating the terrorists." What does that mean? This is what bothers me most about this whole conversation. I've yet to see a clear vision of what winning means.

I first posted this at 8:38 am and so far nobody has answered my question. Some of you are so sure that we need to stay in Iraq and win this war---please tell me what winning means.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:

I'm willing to take the risk that withdrawing will damage your already low self-esteem, k778.


Another great example of your worldview. All opinions you disagree with cannot possibly come from the same intentions as you, otherwise, I should have come to the same conclusion as you. It is precisely this inability of yours to engage in an honest evaluation of other opinions that so often leads you to such erroneous conclusions.

In your worldview, it is not possible that I have the same intentions and motivations regarding this issue as you do. The safety and welfare of this nation is a priority for us both, but only I recognize it in both persons. This is because I understand that two people can arrive at two different yet honest solutions for the same issue, while you believe that there is only one honest solution, and any others must have less than noble motivations, as you succinctly suggest above.

Don't fret bozo, you aren't the only one here suffering from this same ailment. You all will continue to attack our intentions or intelligence, while we attack your reasoning and worldview, and occasionally we'll actually make mutually coherent points, but that is rare.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

Maybe I didn't ask my question correctly.

What is the scenario that brings us to "winning"? Peace and stability only describes what will happen after we win. What is the situation in which we win? What has to happen?

Somebody please answer.

jonas 6 years, 8 months ago

Possessionannex: It looks like the countdown took a little longer than we thought. Three days, they must be slipping.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

OK, I'll try one more time.

Vet4Freedom answers--- "No, peace and security come before declaring victory. You have placed the cart before the horse."

So victory (winning) comes after we have peace and security. That does not answer my original question. How do we get peace and security?

Is my question not clear?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Another great example of your worldview. All opinions you disagree with cannot possibly come from the same intentions as you, otherwise, I should have come to the same conclusion as you."

Your intentions are all too clear, k778. You like death and destruction, and you intend for our government to supply it in industrial quantities. So you are wrong that our intentions are the same.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Where did you get that? I simply pointed out that it is indeed a struggle to the death, between two ideologies, just like it was with Imperial Japan."

Wrong. Your ideology is pretty much the same as that of bin Laden, et al. You want them dead as bad as they want you dead. Many of us don't share your and other terrorists' ideology.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

So winning = "One side has to quit."

That still doesn't tell me what the plan is to get the other side to quit.

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

OK, the heat from all this flaming has me lightheaded and confused. We have to kill all of the insurgents and then we will have won?

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:

Your intentions are all too clear, k778. You like death and destruction, and you intend for our government to supply it in industrial quantities. So you are wrong that our intentions are the same.


In your worldview, it is not possible that I have the same intentions and motivations regarding this issue as you do. The safety and welfare of this nation is a priority for us both, but only I recognize it in both persons. This is because I understand that two people can arrive at two different yet honest solutions for the same issue, while you believe that there is only one honest solution, and any others must have less than noble motivations, as you succinctly suggest above.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Your views are tiresome and immature, yet I would defend to the death your right to express them."

All I see you doing is wishing millions dead, merely because they live in the wrong part of the world and might have a religion you don't approve of.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

Your intentions may be honest, k778, but they still entail killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people who pose no risk to any of us, and destroying and occupying their country. I don't find that particularly "noble."

verity 6 years, 8 months ago

I was going to go away since this conversation has gone off the rails, but I feel compelled to answer posessionannex's answer to my question. That is so totally a copout. I asked a question in good faith and nobody who supports the Iraqi war has been able to give me an actual plan.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

You seem to have no problem with slaughter as long as its US tax dollars and its military doing the slaughtering, PA.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Stop getting American troops killed, withdraw from the middle east."

I agree with you new plan. Will the violence in Iraq come to an immediate halt? Likely not, but it'll as long as the US continues the occupation, it's guaranteed never to stop.

"And a willingness to blow up little girls in their elementary schools."

Are you referring to the US military?

Richard Heckler 6 years, 8 months ago

*44,000 dead or disabled american military = 50 years of disability payments for those who got out disabled and their families plus four years of college.

  • Funding for destruction of Iraq

  • 1million dead and injured Iraq men,women and children due abuse of government power by the republican party

  • A wrecked economy and 50 cents of every tax dollar going to the military industrial complex

*A wrecked USA image due to an abusive republican administration

Richard Heckler 6 years, 8 months ago

British Correspondent Patrick Cockburn on Iraq's Growing Sectarian Divide and the Myth of "Success" in the US "Surge"

As a new civil war threatens to explode in Iraq between US-backed Iraqi government forces and Shia militiamen, we go to London to speak with Patrick Cockburn, Iraq correspondent for the London Independent. Covering the invasion and occupation from the ground in Iraq for the past five years, Cockburn has been described as "the best Western journalist at work in Iraq today." He is author of the new book Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/27/british_correspondent_patrick_cockburn_on_iraqs

Iraq Imploding As We Speak http://antiwar.com/

Baghdad - Most dangerous City http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,484661,00.html

mick 6 years, 8 months ago

Look up PNAC in Wikipedia, follow the link and read their own manifesto and you'll see what this neocon adventure is really all about. It's not going to change if we get a Democrat either. Thanks to the mainstream media it's a non-issue.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"As the left prepares for the sublime ecstasy of some genuine bad news from Iraq:"

It's who would be ecstatic, PA. After all, that'd provide "justification" for even greater and more indiscriminate death and destruction.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Max1, no one ever reads any of your links.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"Max1, no one ever reads any of your links."

Got a link that proves that? Or are you just saying that you never read them?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"That is when you have an acceptable level of peace and security in Iraq."

Acceptable to whom? And under what conditions? Saddam was a murderous a**hole, but there was much greater peace and security prior to 2003 than is even remotely conceivable under BushCo occupation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

Life under Saddam most certainly wasn't safe or secure, but it's all relative, Kevin, and most rational people don't consider the at least 600,000 dead Iraqis under BushCo to be peaceful or secure, although anyone reading this forum knows you don't fit under the category of "rational people."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"You, sir, are a chump. And wrong."

You spelled that wrong, scenebooser. (Hint-- it's past his bedtime.)

jonas 6 years, 8 months ago

"What appears to be many people getting booted is actually the same two or three people getting booted repeatedly."

Who tend to go snooping around trying to find other people's private or at least unrelated information to then post publicly in an attempt to humiliate, discredit, or simply bully them into silence.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

Boy, that's some of the runniest sh*t you've flung yet, PA.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 8 months ago

"BOZO, what have you done to make this time in history better? What have you sacrificed?"

Why is it necessary for me to beat my own drum in order to discuss the "Costs of War?" (Or have you lost track of theme of this thread?)

JHOK32 6 years, 8 months ago

I've asked these questions several times.....no answers: Bush said we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a tyrant & he had "WMD's." We now know there never were any WMD's & we killed Saddam. 2. Simple question.....why are we still there? 3. Simple VERY obvious answer.....Bush & Chaney represent Big Oil..... duh!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.