American Foreign Policy: a Ruinous War?
August 11, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
I hardly ever comment on American politics, but I was reading a piece on running mates for Obama, and I encountered a statement that made me think for a second.
If anything, Obama has rejected this notion — arguing with vigor and conviction that Washington’s “experience†led the nation into a ruinous war in Iraq (with prominent Democrats such as Clinton, Dick Gephardt and even enthusiastic Obama supporter Jay Rockefeller backing the preemptive war).
Is it ruinous? That word stuck out at me. I think that Iraqis are better off now than they were under Hussein. I think that the Middle East is less volatile today than it was. But considering what the USA has had to deal with to achieve this: deficit spending that hasn’t been seen in years. Huge increases in national debt. A spread out military means they haven’t been able to respond to other things.  There’s probably lots of other things but as I said, I am no expert.
The money alone seems to me to be ruinous. I don’t have a hate-on for Bush the way most of my liberal friends do (and even some conservatives), but I don’t think what’s been achieved in Iraq was worth the cost to America’s economy, nor to its people. I think Afghanistan has had much more immediate results with more gains for the people of Afghanistan, with less cost in lives and in spending. But not Iraq.
I guess the difference is it is easy to say that in hindsight.
I am astonished at your perspective, Shane.
The death and destruction of property alone seem to me to be ruinous. The Irak war has undoubtedly been ruinous for the Irakis who have been killed and maimed — let alone the people who have lost property.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I see no reason to have a different perspective. I like to think that it is just pure luck that I was born in Canda and not in Afghanistan or Irak.
I am astonished that you are astonished.
Let me ask you this: Was World War I ruinous? World War II? They needed to be fought. They resulted in freedom for the people who suffered through them. They prevented oppression and war from coming on others.
Is no sacrifice worth the pain? Or is it just that I am not qualified to judge because I did not personally choose to sacrifice?
You have every right to judge no matter what your qualifications. My astonishment arises from you not taking into account the people who suffered. From my high and mighty vantage point, the people who made the sacrifices are the only ones who have a right to determine whether a particular military expedition is worth it.
In most cases, the people who reap the benefits are not the people who make the sacrifice and most of the sacrifices made were coerced. Therefore, it makes no sense to balance them out. All you can conclude is what choices people make when their choices are limited.
The War To End All Wars was most certainly ruinous and I dispute that it needed to be fought — least of all by Canadians or Americans. I do not buy all the pap that says we were fighting oppression. You tell that to the people who suffered and then had to send their children back to the battlefield.
Let me ask you this: Would the Second World War even exist if the Americans did not enter the First World War?
I think not. Before the Americans entered WW1, the European forces were tiring and would have likely negotiated a settlement. Germany would not have been crushed and blamed for everything.
The government of the USA has not declared on August, 13th mourning on victims of a genocide in South Ossetia, how the Europe because it supports terrorist Saakashvili and a genocide? You will not be assured that results of presidential elections of the USA are forged?
[TRANSLATED] I WANT TO BE A PILOT (full length)…
The Bible is not primarily addressed to individuals, because it is precisely as individuals that we are most likely to fail as Christians. The New Testament is not how to be better individual Christians, it is a picture of how the church should look. T…