Another reason economists are dorks!

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:35:03 -0500, wrote:
shoudl either make food on our promises to let them govern themselves or

Mmmmmm....promised food...

I'm hungry.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
I'm also against BODY-SURFING!!
12:34:23 PM 30 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

Zoot Katz wrote:

Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:41:55 GMT,
, Mark Hickey
wrote:


So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
worth?

No, I won't waste my breath.

You, explain to their mothers how it was worth it.

Calculations have to be done, no matter how you feel about it. It's
the way of the world.

Do you think that calculation (and "explanation to their mothers") was
somehow easier for Lincoln during the Civil War, or Roosevelt during
WWII? These are generally considered "good wars". I doubt it matters.

People can die fighting an evil, or they can die slipping in the bathtub.
The pain of loss is no less for surviving loved ones either way.


SMH

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:44:20 GMT, Mark Hickey from Habanero
Cycles wrote:

I hope we get a representative democracy in the middle of an area that
is ruled by oppressive dictators currently. I hope the Iraqis set
such an example for their neighbors that the population in the rest of
the region demands the same.

That's what I hope to "get for it".

Those are your hopes. But it certainly isn't the plan. Bush is playing you for a
chump.

Ahh yes, the evil[tm] Bush.

What he really wants is the oil, even though it's looking like the oil fields
are in such bad shape, the US is going to have to pump in far more to get the
increased flow than Iraq will get from the sales of said oil. Something like
estimated $14 billion.

I'll opt for the hope that a democracy can be established in the area, thus
ending the term "arab democracy" as an oxymoron, and setting nearby regimes
(Syria, Iran), and the people within, on notice that other ways of governing
the region are possible.

If you're only capable of seeing any resulting form of Iraqi government as a
US lackey, then there's nothing really to discuss. Dueling dogma isn't worth
much effort.


SMH

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:23:04 -0500, wrote:
And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.

You are supporting Saddam. That attitude is exactly what
he wanted to create.

Here's how it happened:

"We're not feeling very tolerant right now."

"We're coming, and you better not have weapons of mass
destruction when we get there!"

"We'll be there in 10 days, you better not have weapons
of mass destruction!"

"We're here, you better not have weapons of mass destruction!"

Then, we attacked. Saddam knew that we'd win, so his only
option was to save some face and cause some problems on this
end by clearing 'em out before we found them.

If the mayor said in the paper "Due to community concerns,
we're going to raid the crackhouse on Main Street", then
the chief of police said on TV "We're raiding the crackhouse
on Main Street next Monday", then the cops showed up to the
crackhouse and knocked on the door yelling "We're here to
raid you and catch you in the act", do you really think that
the crack dealers would be in that house with a stash of
crack?

No. They'd get rid of it all and run. This is precisely what
Saddam did.

If you believe otherwise, you are very gullible, and I have
a bridge I'd like to sell you, although you wouldn't buy it
from me because I'm a capitalist pig.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
Civilization is fun! Anyway, it keeps me busy!!
4:22:25 PM 30 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

Mark Hickey wrote:

So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
oppresive regime?

And while you're calculating the cost/benefit ratio for that, name me
any other conflict in the history of the world where the cost/benefit
ratio was lower.

Is there a benefit? If it's zero, that's a _high" cost/benefit ratio.
Democracy? They haven't seen it yet, and frankly, I haven't heard
anything out of our American press or president about free and open
elections anytime lately. Liberated from an oppressive regime? How
many Iraqis are likely to claim they're free now? The Sunnis in the
south want us out, as do the Kurds in the north and the Baathists in the
center.

I'm afraid if you take off your rose-colored glasses, the world doesn't
look so rosy any more...

Pat
--
Apologies to those easily confused. Address is spam-resistant.
Correct email address like pdlamb 'round-about comcast point net.

Kevan Smith /\/\ wrote in
:


You know, as bad a murderer as Saddam was, it seems to me that
fewer Iraqis were dying as a result of his regime than are dying
now as a result of the war and occupation. In fact, I think the
sanctions killed more than Saddam did, too. I could be wrong, but
no one is collecting the relevant data. I wonder why.

Very interesting that your points are that "it seems to me", "I think",
and "you could be wrong".

snip

we shoudl either make food on our promises to let them
govern themselves or we should get the hell out.

As I see it you are and you are (going to).

Patrick Lamb wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
oppresive regime?

And while you're calculating the cost/benefit ratio for that, name me
any other conflict in the history of the world where the cost/benefit
ratio was lower.

Is there a benefit? If it's zero, that's a _high" cost/benefit ratio.
Democracy? They haven't seen it yet, and frankly, I haven't heard
anything out of our American press or president about free and open
elections anytime lately. Liberated from an oppressive regime? How
many Iraqis are likely to claim they're free now? The Sunnis in the
south want us out, as do the Kurds in the north and the Baathists in the
center.

I'm afraid if you take off your rose-colored glasses, the world doesn't
look so rosy any more...

I don't think anyone with half a brain sees anything "rosy" in Iraq,
but it is a more pleasant color of mud than it was IMHO.

Did you happen to see the demonstrations in Iraq? That's a sure sign
of freedom. Also, people who bitch and throw rocks make much better
news than those who appreciate the US being there (the vast majority
according to the first hand accounts I've heard from service people).
One kind of "glasses" I try not to wear too much are those shaped like
TV screens - they cause all kinds of distortion... ;-)

Of course, there are those who would cast derision on GWB if Baghdad
had already become as good (or bad...) as LA. Decades of horrendous
mismanagement and oppression doesn't vanish overnight, and as you
mentioned, Iraq has a long and bloody history of internal conflict.
Yet that all seems to be GWB's fault all the sudden? Hmmmm.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Kevan Smith /\/\ wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:30:51 -0400, Stephen Harding
from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:

I'll opt for the hope that a democracy can be established in the area, thus
ending the term "arab democracy" as an oxymoron, and setting nearby regimes
(Syria, Iran), and the people within, on notice that other ways of governing
the region are possible.

I hope that, too. I don't see it happening.

There have already been huge pro-democracy riots in Iran (and not just
college students either). A very good sign that "they're starting to
get it". The region is also fed a steady stream of propaganda about
the US that is crumbling under the weight of the relatively benign US
presence, and will face huge pressure when western news starts being
broadcast in the region (heck, even CNN is better than AJ...).

If you're only capable of seeing any resulting form of Iraqi government as a
US lackey, then there's nothing really to discuss. Dueling dogma isn't worth
much effort.

If we let the Iraqi people organize their own system of governance without U.S.
oversight, I would be satisfied. Would you? I think you wouldn't. I think you
view the Iraqi government as 'spoils of war' -- that is, it's ours to dictate
what is and is not acceptable.

No one has said that, and I'll wager no one here wants that. I think
the US hopes the resultant Iraqi government is friendly toward the US,
but I don't see any real chance of it being a "puppet regime", unless
that's what the people vote for I guess (hey, there COULD be a Puppet
Regime Party I guess...).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...

So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
oppresive regime?


Hello.... we have not installed a democracy over there nor liberated
anyone. The only thing we've done is start pumping oil, and give American
corporations rights to control various aspects of infastructure that have
not been provided. As of now the state of that country is in far worse
condition than before we got there.

What makes you think our murder and plunder won't end up just like
Afghanistan. There's a perfect example of a pipeline and a puppet
government now installed and a country left worse.

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:24:56 -0400, Stephen Harding
from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:

Do you think that calculation (and "explanation to their mothers") was
somehow easier for Lincoln during the Civil War, or Roosevelt during
WWII?

Hitler won WWII. Everyone owning a car was his idea. Now that we've done that in
the U.S., look at what it has gotten us: dependence on foreign oil and the need
for a militaristic empire to secure cheap access to resources. Hitler's laughing
in Hell.

Well Kev, I'll just say it looks like we both agree that Hitler is in Hell.


SMH