Was Iraq War II an irresponsible war financially and, strategically, a predictable

[The Backlash Cometh]

military disaster? And if so, why isn't this point being driven home?

Just had the usual conversation with the ex-marine, son of the confederacy, Republican southerner and after he gave me a long dissertation about his Southern roots, he tried to sell me on the line that we made a mistake in Iraq War I by not going the whole way to Baghdad. I told him that GWBI didn't go in because he knew we couldn't hold Iraq without great financial sacrifice and that it would be impossible to occupy successfully. Basically, we'd get into the quagmire that we're experiencing today. Also, I pointed out that it was always about the oil, and was that really reason enough to risk the displeasure of the world.

He replied that Iraq was also a militarily strategic location which we needed to control the Middle East.

I replied that a rash decision to bully our way into the Middle East has created tremendous alienation and displeasure in the global community, and that it has not only resulted in a financial loss to our country, but that we will eventually be defeated without one bullet being fired. Our unilateral decisions have sent the signal to foreign countries that we will not rely on diplomatic decisions, so they're not waiting around to see who comes out of this the winner. Instead, they're dumping the dollar and moving to the EURO, quicker than they would have, had we been more diplomatic in our decision making process. I told him that soon the dollar may go the way of his precious confederate money. He had a far away, gone with the wind look in his eyes after I said it.

I think since it's money that drives the Republican voter, and since the Republican voter is primarily Southern males, why don't we push that point? Their desire for dominance is going to result in more worthless paper money. Everything they wanted to protect is slipping through their fingers because no one has money to keep their small businesses afloat, and they have their own Republican leadership to thank for it.

The guy works in construction, so he knows that everybody in the business is undercutting each other and that things are dire. We need to show them, that they only have themselves to blame for this predicament.

[On the Road]

1. If Someone is Convinced the War Was Necessary

for national security, finances tend to take a back seat. That's probably why that argument hasn't been made or hasn't resonated more.

On the other hand, the justifications for the war keep changing. Once the war starts being discussed in terms of spreading democracy or releasing people from tyrranny, it's worth pointing out that our national debt is (I believe) roughly $3T higher than when Bush took office.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. That makes no sense.

In a war, there are no winners. Just one side loses more than the other. At least, that's the way it is when there is no privatization involved to give an organization an opportunity to skim off the profits. So, if you don't have the money to occupy a country after the initial battle is won, then it is a militarily a bad decision to fire the first shot.

So, in hindsight, it looks more and more each day that George Bush got us into a quagmire, in the most irresponsible of ways. He took a careless gamble with the future of our country, and at some point, people have to see that each day we stay there, is another bad gamble. This is a war that cannot be won. This is like trying to keep the titanic afloat with just a sardine can to bail out water.

[Disturbed]

3. The backers of the Illegal Iraq Invasion were prepared to

Occupy Iraq for at least ten years with a substantial US Military but more important,with a Merc Force. Rumsfailed said this a number of times. He is an Asshole but on this point he was being candid. The ME is vital to the Multi-Corps domination of resources, not only oil but water and other resources. Greenspam laid it out, as well. PNAC details the Agenda.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. The "multi-corporations domination of resources"

How many Americans will have to die in the Middle East, before the mothers in this country see the farce behind our methods? Our children die, while the greediest capitalists in America reap the profits? How long can that plan last without challenge?

An extended presence in the Middle East will not be possible, unless we ditch capitalism. Shared pain.

[Disturbed]

5. I still maintain that most Dems in Congress are secretly in

favor of the Occupation of Iraq. They are posturing for a substantial draw down to appease their constituents yet keep the funds rolling in for the Fiasco. Those "vital interests" are not going to be abandoned by either party or their Corp. funders.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I think there's a wimpy reason for their support. The right-winger laid it out.

The Dems want Bush to end the war on his own term, because, if the Dems do it and something bad happens, they're afraid to get the blame for it. So, they're giving it time until, I guess, it gets so bad that they'll lose elections if they don't?

[On the Road]

7. Certainly It Makes Sense

The premise is simply wrong.

If the US had been fundamentally threatened, a war might have saved the country. The money for it certainly exists if our existence is threatened.

However, if we're talking about one isolated country in the Middle East that does not threaten the US, the amounts are completely disproportionate.