dagblog - Comments for "Half-Assed: Why America Cannot Stop the Slaughter in Iraq"

Iraq is rich in resources.

Resistance — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:49:22 +0000

In reply to The difference between 1941

Iraq is rich in resources. When Maliki, (with the support of Putin), is removed and stability restored in Iraq; International trade will resume. The west and it's allies, will gladly support Iraq's geopolitical influence.

In fact, days after the U.S. invasion, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for reconstructing the country, i.e. a cost of the war. “The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/14/86715/rove-iraq-oil/

The difference between 1941

Beetlejuice — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:16:33 +0000

In reply to Half-Assed: Why America Cannot Stop the Slaughter in Iraq

The difference between 1941 and the present is back then Germany looked as it were going to conquer and control the entire European continent and Japan the entire Pacific west of Hawaii. So an all out effort was started once Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese... do or die ... was what drove the nation. Much of our money and commerce was invested in Europe and the Pacific so any political turmoil would have had a significant impact in our financial markets.

The Korea war, Vietnam war and currently troubles in the Middle East doesn't have that much impact on our commerce or financial markets so less attention is paid. It would be better to classify these military actions as police actions which require fewer resources and personnel as well as concerns over fatalities and reconstruction efforts. They were suppose to be quick and dirty police actions, but ended up costing more money and lives because they underestimated the opposition they would be facing ... war on a budget.

The Middle East has nothing of value for America to expend resources on ... we're not that invested in the region to mount a full fledged war footing. Point being, how many parents are willing to allow their children to run off to war and die in the Middle East ?... for what purpose? what would their deaths gain for America? how much would it cost ? and for how long ?

Simply put, Americans are more than willing to die for a cause, spend billions to trillions of dollars and take as much time as is necessary into an effort so long as there's something financially and material to be gained.

The only way public opinion could be turned would be if ISIS followed the same path as the Muslims had when they began to spread the word of Koran ... conquering North Africa, up through Spain and pushing up into France, then through Greece up into Bulgaria, Romania toward Vienna in Austria.

So as long as they are content to remain in the Middle East, they pose no threat.

The flip side of the coin would be republicans in Congress who would see a full fledged war in the Middle East as the key to unraveling The New Deal and all social benefit programs as a necessary war effort public sacrifice. In other words, going to war just to cut social spending programs and regulatory Agency budgets they don't like without raise taxes.

What many people fail to acknowledge is once the Soviet Union collapsed, all the money, equipment and real estate automatically became a Peace Dividend. The US auctioned it all off and used the proceed to shore up the deficit and plow newly released revenue streams to flow back into public services and works. So too did our Allies. The money once allocated for defense against the Soviet threat is now intermingled with other government services the public uses and relies on. So any new escalation of military functions, resources and so forth will have to come from new revenue resources which republicans are reluctant to consider.

With our current political problems; political factions are seeking to unravel 100 years of progressive legislation. ... does Unreasonable Men ring a bell??? ... one can only sit back and watch because our legislative process is too busy chasing its' tail to be functional.

Also, this.

jollyroger — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:39:56 +0000

In reply to It really does seem sometimes

Also, this.

It really does seem sometimes

artappraiser — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:57:13 +0000

In reply to O/T (aside to DoubleA) I had

It really does seem sometimes that heroin is slightly more acceptable.

A few years back the bodega on the corner was shut down for selling cigs without the proper tax stamps. It was a serious raid with several cars of agents. And they didn't open again for like half a year.

I wonder if it follows that legalizing marijuana everywhere may not be the panacea that many presume. When there's major tax dollars being collected on something, there's a huge incentive to get overly serious about enforcement.and those doing "black market" may end up as demonized as when it was illegal?

I was offering a general

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:28:59 +0000

In reply to Re, your summary: I believe

I was offering a general criticism of America's post-WWII military policy. In the current context, the criticism applies primarily to hawkish Obama critics demanding strikes against ISIS. Obama has been less militarily ambitious than many of his predecessors, which I appreciate. That said, Obama has also engaged in some half-assed military adventures, such as the Libyan airstrikes, and he nearly sent us into Syria.

O/T (aside to DoubleA) I had

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 19:18:44 +0000

In reply to Was Libya really a "no

O/T (aside to DoubleA) I had occasion just now to review a little chat you and I had re:the morphing of tobacco into heroin (vis-a-vis public policy) and, of course, since then we have the escalation of enforcement to lethal force (Eric Garner, killed while trying to escape from the charge of purveying untaxed tobacco...)

Was Libya really a "no

JR — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 19:01:42 +0000

In reply to P.S. Wikipedia has a good

Was Libya really a "no brainer"? (perhaps you meant to say that it was carried out with a minimal amount of brain input?)

I say this as one who has, in the past, seen the Libyan intervention as perhaps the thin narrow wedge of burgeoning UN sovereignty, so I am implicitely conflicted.

Two problems seem to have arisin in Libya, on the way to the new millenial international world order.

One, the immediate "mission creep" from R2P to regime change.

Two, the failure of the internationalist coalition to provide any sort of follow-on law and order so as to prevent the epoch of the militias that has given us both a dead ambassador and the flood of previously Libyan owned weapons into Africa (eg Mali, Algeria (the gas center seizure) and, of course, Syria/Iraq (we'll need a new contraction, kinda like Afpaq)

No, no, no. What's on second

JR — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 18:45:54 +0000

In reply to It's beyond the demand stage

No, no, no. What's on second, the guy in the dugout? That's "Habib".

It's beyond the demand stage

Bruce Levine — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 12:17:48 +0000

In reply to Thanks Jeff, I confess that

It's beyond the demand stage at this point based on what is coming out of the White House, and beyond the humanitarian focus as well. Next question is when our elected congressional representatives chime in. My bet is "authorization" vote is taken with courage and with impeccable timing -- after November 5th.

I have no skin in the game when it comes to defining the president"s performance and/or legacy but The GOPs lack of leadership meme has grown tiresome and beside the point already I think. And the president seems to be back in stride and deliberating appropriately. The real and genuine concerns are reflected by folks here and elsewhere who ask: Who the F is on first and what's that guy from the other team doing in our dugout, and how the hell do we end this thing . . . ever.

Totally sassy AA. I'll work

Bruce Levine — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 05:44:16 +0000

In reply to he is only here to piss me

Totally sassy AA. I'll work on him a bit. I can always bribe him with Twins tix or something.