scubamage wrote:
Because we've accomplished oh so much during the past 16 years...
Ah. So because the last 16 years didn't go so well (most of which was during the UN resolution debacle btw, which Bush *ended* by invading), we should just give up. Yeah. That makes sense. Let's not assess the situation by looking at the likely results of optionA versus optionB, let's just look at the past, conclude that things haven't gone well, and just chuck out what we're doing *now* regardless of how it related in policy to what we were doing for most of that 16 year period and adopt a random strategy instead.
Not doing something is still doing something else. It should be obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.
As to your bullet points?
Quote:
...irradiating a massive amount of sand with depleted uranium causing cancer the frequency of which only Chernobyl has seen
Doubt that seriously. The quantity of depleted uranium used by US forces in Iraq is hardly measurable if you know where to look, is not even in the same ballpark as something like Chernobyl, and is window dressing compared to the health problems steming from the Iraqi governments experimentation and use of chemical weapons.
Quote:
...destroying most of the country's infrastructure, including sewage systems, causing widespread disease
I'd point out that virtually all aspects of the Iraqi infrastructure are now at levels exceeding what they were before we invaded. Now you can argue that that's because the sanctions screwed them and made it impossible to recover after the Gulf War, but one of the main arguments against invading was that the resolutions "were working". I'd suggest that they weren't, but that's just me.
Quote:
...killing pretty much an entire generation of children (estimated at about 500,000 by the world health organization) with embargoes on medicines, medical equipment, and food through the 90's
Again. A problem caused by the ridiculous sanctions employed by the UN for far longer then they were supposed to run purely because they were unable to make a decision. You do know that the UN sanctions were originally only supposed to run for 18 months while Iraq complied with the terms of the cease fire, right? But then when Saddam called their bluff and didn't comply, the UN's balls dropped right off their sac and they sat there imposing sanctions for 13 years. And then insisted on blocking any action that might remove those sanctions. Go figure!
Quote:
...waving goodbye to more than 300 billion dollars which for the first 3 years of the war didn't have a single auditor watching where it was being spent
Really? How do you know it cost 300 billion then?
Didn't really think that point through did you? Maybe you should leave the hyperbole at the door before posting? Just a thought...
Quote:
...losing support of the Kurds, Turkey, and destabilizing an entire region
Yeah. Cause it was so stable before we got there. Which time period exactly are you referring to? The time period when the Baathists lead a revolution and took power and proceeded to start executing anyone they didn't like (including a lot of shiite clerics)? Or the period during which Iraq and Iran were in a constant state of war? Or the period during that war and after in which they used chemical weapons on Iranians and any people living in Iraq that Saddam didn't like? Or perhaps you're referring to the time period in which he proceeded to invade Kuwait in order to get some more oil?
Which stable period of time are you thinking about? I'm just curious.
Quote:
Yep, I think spending more time in Iraq is really going to make a world of difference.
Yes. It would. If we actually commit to doing it instead of going halfway and then losing interest/will. Cause guess what? The people living there don't want to live under a brutal authoritarian regime. It's just that up until now, they've had no choice. And when people are faced with a "join us or die" situation, they tend to join up. The only way this is *ever* going to work is if the people as a whole trust that they wont be the first up against the wall down the line. And that only works if they know that we wont leave randomly because people like you insist that somehow leaving must be better then staying, not because we've actually thought about what happens when we leave, but just because we don't like the prospect of staying.
Sometimes, you do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. I'm sure someone said that at some time in the past. Maybe someday we'll learn to live up to it. We cannot simply choose the easy path here. Well. We can, but it will be a disaster in the long term if we do.
How about you spend even half as much time thinking about what happens if we leave without securing Iraq as you've spent thinking about what happens if we stay. That might just give you some perspective on the issue.
Edited, Jul 16th 2007 8:34pm by gbaji