NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

I'll have to send him a letter asking how the crow tasted.

Don't get your hopes up. If the posters on this forum are any indication, even if everything comes out PERFECT they'll say

a) it's all a lie
b) it's all a conspiracy
c) Bush had nothing to do with it
d) the Democrats would have done a better job (but they won't say how)
e) you're still lying

It's been my experience on this forum so far.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

Congrats,

Bush screwed your economy. First by spending billons on the Iraq war, second on spending even more on keeping troops there. The reason was for oil. Had he had the foresight he would have instead invested in the Hydrogen industry and started pouring money into high speed rail systems such as Maglev rail systems to get people out of their cars and start the concept of satellite cities. Now instead the US had a $7.7 trillion debt and growing, uses 20 million barrels of oil per day, 12 million of which they have to import DAILY. Instead of paying down the debt he gave tax cuts, instead of dealing with the debt he plans to privitize social assistance. Congrats on your economy being screwed and you being on the verge of the second part of a double dip recession! I honestly am not happy with it, since my economy (in Canada) will follow yours since whatever your economy does mine does right after. Still, I find it troublesome that individuals continue to debate the war while your economy is in such bad shape that even Greenspan is noting worry about it.

Congrats,

Bush screwed your economy. First by spending billons on the Iraq war, second on spending even more on keeping troops there. The reason was for oil. Had he had the foresight he would have instead invested in the Hydrogen industry and started pouring money into high speed rail systems such as Maglev rail systems to get people out of their cars and start the concept of satellite cities. Now instead the US had a $7.7 trillion debt and growing, uses 20 million barrels of oil per day, 12 million of which they have to import DAILY. Instead of paying down the debt he gave tax cuts, instead of dealing with the debt he plans to privitize social assistance. Congrats on your economy being screwed and you being on the verge of the second part of a double dip recession! I honestly am not happy with it, since my economy (in Canada) will follow yours since whatever your economy does mine does right after. Still, I find it troublesome that individuals continue to debate the war while your economy is in such bad shape that even Greenspan is noting worry about it.
relevence to this thread = zero

Congrats,

Bush screwed your economy. First by spending billons on the Iraq war, second on spending even more on keeping troops there. The reason was for oil. Had he had the foresight he would have instead invested in the Hydrogen industry and started pouring money into high speed rail systems such as Maglev rail systems to get people out of their cars and start the concept of satellite cities. Now instead the US had a $7.7 trillion debt and growing, uses 20 million barrels of oil per day, 12 million of which they have to import DAILY. Instead of paying down the debt he gave tax cuts, instead of dealing with the debt he plans to privitize social assistance. Congrats on your economy being screwed and you being on the verge of the second part of a double dip recession! I honestly am not happy with it, since my economy (in Canada) will follow yours since whatever your economy does mine does right after. Still, I find it troublesome that individuals continue to debate the war while your economy is in such bad shape that even Greenspan is noting worry about it.


Despite popular beleif, hydrogen is not the most readily acessible element on earth. the only viable way to get hydrogen consumes more energy than the hydrogen will produce in the cars. and, i doubt that even if the hydrogen car industry gets up and running, i know of plenty of underdeveloped countries that would be willing to hydrolize their water supplies :rolleyes:

Still, I find it troublesome that individuals continue to debate the war while your economy is in such bad shape that even Greenspan is noting worry about it.
Somehow I doubt you'd want us to take his advice.

Congrats,
<snip>

What a load of crap.

Well, it seems thta the major argument people had against the war was that it wasn't having the desired effect. I'm not worried about the debt. We can fix that. Social Security is a greater threat at this point, since in 50 years we will either have to get rid of it or it will bankrupt us.

Now, if the fiercest opponents are admitting it did after all promote democracy in the Middle East, then I'd say "mission accomplished" about does it. I'm sure all the nice, socially concerned Democrats will now come out screaming about how they care more about the money we spend than the quality of people's lives in underdeveloped countries. Oh well :rolleyes:

Free elections. . .kinda like the Soviet Union right? And as far as we know, Lebanon was not sparked by Iraq turning into a democracy. If you haven't noticed, Iraq isn't a very pretty place right now so this whole democratic experiment can't be counted as a success until it actually settles down into more or less and ordered state. Syria isn't pulling out all of its troops and there was a series of pro-Syria rallies held in Lebanon.

Bush did all of this? I think not.

They've done well to get a democracy started (whether it will last, we shall see) but they've probably made a harder task of it than it should have been. Spending the money on perhaps providing the entire world with clean drinking water would have cost less and helped more people (that is, if the war was only about helping people which it remains doubtful it was. I'm still not convinced it was entirely about oil either though.) Still, 10k+ americans killed or wounded is a fair amount considering that 'wounded' is anything from a shrapnel wound to the loss of several limbs.

If you consider the actual number of dead is around 1500 in two years, compare that to 6111 per year during the Vietnam war.

If you consider the actual number of dead is around 1500 in two years, compare that to 6111 per year during the Vietnam war.
Whats your point? Vietnam was 30 years ago. Different technology, different battlefield. This is now and that's still 750 American soldiers (internationals and civilians not counted) dead per year.

If you consider the actual number of dead is around 1500 in two years, compare that to 6111 per year during the Vietnam war.

If you're going to do that, why not just compare every battle to the Somme?

Whats your point? Vietnam was 30 years ago. Different technology, different battlefield. This is now and that's still 750 American soldiers (internationals and civilians not counted) dead per year.

We're more effective at waging war. To the point where we can keep the casualty count below the point where the war becomes incredibly unpopular at home.

That's the point.

I could also make the point that the insurgents in Iraq are having a harder time than the Viet Cong ever did - they seem to be confined to attacking their own people (which isn't something that Mao recommends if you want to remain popular).

They've done well to get a democracy started (whether it will last, we shall see) but they've probably made a harder task of it than it should have been. Spending the money on perhaps providing the entire world with clean drinking water would have cost less and helped more people (that is, if the war was only about helping people which it remains doubtful it was. I'm still not convinced it was entirely about oil either though.) Still, 10k+ americans killed or wounded is a fair amount considering that 'wounded' is anything from a shrapnel wound to the loss of several limbs.
I agree, its also alittle to early to be calling in one way or the other.

Free elections. . .kinda like the Soviet Union right? And as far as we know, Lebanon was not sparked by Iraq turning into a democracy. If you haven't noticed, Iraq isn't a very pretty place right now so this whole democratic experiment can't be counted as a success until it actually settles down into more or less and ordered state. Syria isn't pulling out all of its troops and there was a series of pro-Syria rallies held in Lebanon.

Bush did all of this? I think not.
Maybe, but then again it was the Lebanese that said that the war in iraq helped. I'll just take it for granted they know better than you :D .

From http://slate.msn.com/id/2114450/

I would like to have a dollar for every time I have read that the American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan "fuels" the insurgency. There must obviously be some self-evident truth to this proposition. If coalition forces were not present in these countries, then nobody would or could be shooting at them. Still, if this is self-evident one way then it must be self-evident in another. Islamic jihadism is also "fueled" by the disgrace and shame of the unveiled woman, or by the existence of Jews and Christians and Hindus and atheists, or by the publication of novels by apostates. The Syrian death squads must be "fueled" by the appearance of opposition politicians in Lebanon or indeed Syria. The janjaweed militia (if we must call them a militia) in Sudan must be "fueled" by the inconvenience of African villagers who stand in their way.

Probably the most cogent thing I've ever heard on the subject. Should we stop being "present" in foreign lands just because that will "fuel" something?

Or are these movements that want to bring down Western Civilization going to fuel themselves, even if we leave them alone?

Maybe, but then again it was the Lebanese that said that the war in iraq helped. I'll just take it for granted they know better than you :D .

Okay, but what are the Syrians actually doing? Keeping troops in Lebanon. They had some nice protests for both sides of the fence and yet the Syrians remain.


We're more effective at waging war. To the point where we can keep the casualty count below the point where the war becomes incredibly unpopular at home.
You mean like it was when it started and like it still is. A war will never again get to the point of unpopularity as Vietnam did but this was pretty damn unpopular.



I could also make the point that the insurgents in Iraq are having a harder time than the Viet Cong ever did - they seem to be confined to attacking their own people (which isn't something that Mao recommends if you want to remain popular).
For some reason I don't think the insurgents need to be popular. After all, they're doing what Lenin did with the addition of an occupying force. They want to drive out the invaders then they'll just terrorize the rest of the nation into subservience and regain power. Or at least thats what the insurgents want to happen. The Americans aren't gone yet though.

I wish I had a dollar for every Anti-Bush comment just on Nation States. Then I could start political threads for fun AND profit... and I would be rich!

For some reason I don't think the insurgents need to be popular. After all, they're doing what Lenin did with the addition of an occupying force. They want to drive out the invaders then they'll just terrorize the rest of the nation into subservience and regain power. Or at least thats what the insurgents want to happen. The Americans aren't gone yet though.

Obviously, the insurgents haven't got the Kurds or Shia scared enough not to vote - in fact, the majority of attacks are by the Sunnis on their own people.

Which makes me think that they're trying to keep them in line - but still some 20 percent went out to vote. So I don't think they have the stranglehold of fear - nor can they generate it anymore.

Justifying an immoral action by its unforseen good results does not eliminate the culpability of the party committing the immoral action

(immoral action here being invading a country that never attacked us first, reneging on our UN responsibilites, lying and manufacturing an excuse to go to war, and using excessive force, destroying the nation's infrastructure and using depleted uranium in the munitions.)

Its like justifying stealing because 'they were just gonna use that money for drugs anyway'. It may have had a good side effect, but it is still stealing.

Or excusing the murder of a gynecologist because he might have performed abortions.


And i think the comment on our economy being trashed is a valid point. Yes, we may have created some impetus in the outside world, but AT WHAT COST to our own people.

TO WHOM DOES THE PRESIDENT OWE HIS LOYALTY? the people of the world, or the people of the US?

He sold out our future to 'foreign entanglements' which is expressly discouraged by the US founding fathers. The Ultimate Immoral Act.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

First of all, the anti-Syria demonstrations in Lebanon had absolutely nothing to do with the US. They were a direct result of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14th. Furthermore, those demonstrations were dwarfed by massive pro-Syria demonstrations in Lebanon.

Secondly, the Iraqi elections were a success only if you consider an election so flawed that one of the two major groups in the country chose to boycott it a success. Imagine that there was an election in the US and a consensus could not be reached on when and how to run the election, but someone forced the election to go on anyway and the Republicans decide to boycott that election. The results of the election show that only 2% of the Republicans voted because the rest were boycotting. If that is what you call a successful election, then yes the Iraqi elections were a great success despite Sunni boycotts.

The Egyptian elections are a result of US pressure, that much is undeniable. But most experts feel that it is not really a step towards democracy but rather a facelift to make it look more legitimate. It is well known that their elections for parliament members have been fraught with corruption and fraud for many years, why would it be any different with the president on the ballot?

I am not familiar with any alleged Saudi Arabian steps towards democracy, so Ill leave that one alone. However, as you can see, there is nothing yet to celebrate. If the time comes to celebrate then we will celebrate, but for now let us not count our chickens before they hatch.

However, as you can see, there is nothing yet to celebrate. If the time comes to celebrate then we will celebrate, but for now let us not count our chickens before they hatch.

I would agree with that. But I would also say that it's too soon to say that the Bush policy of pre-emption is a bad thing, either.

In either case, we'll have to wait a few years to see how things shake out, and what the real effects were.

Modern Liberal thought almost seems like it can be reduced to a simple equation:

Something bad happens: "It's Bush's fault!"
Something good happens: "Bush couldn't be responsible for it in any way, shape, or form!"

It's sad, really.

A war will never again get to the point of unpopularity as Vietnam did but this was pretty damn unpopular.



That may be true in the US because the politicians have leverage with the media and can conduct policies like marketing strategies. Marketing can even make tobacco smoking look glamorous.

But FYI, the LARGEST WORLDWIDE PROTEST EVER took place over this invasion of Iraq.

So it is already more unpopular (worldwide) than any other military action.

Modern Liberal thought almost seems like it can be reduced to a simple equation:

Something bad happens: "It's Bush's fault!"
Something good happens: "Bush couldn't be responsible for it in any way, shape, or form!"

It's sad, really.

So true. And it's really kind of pointless because if a Democrat had gotten into office, all the same crap would have happened... the only thing different would be it was the Republicans saying "I Told You So."

This is one of the reasons they couldn't pay me enough to be President. Always some nut thinks you're part of a conspiracy.

Modern Liberal thought almost seems like it can be reduced to a simple equation:

Something bad happens: "It's Bush's fault!"
Something good happens: "Bush couldn't be responsible for it in any way, shape, or form!"

It's sad, really.

What's sad, is that you are lumping 80% of Europeans, all of the Green Party, Socialist party, Libertarian party and Social Progressives all under the label of LIBERAL.

there are plenty of conservatives that are horrified at BUsh's fiscal policies. I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the ones who spent a lot of money. Bush went through a surplus and put us deeper in debt than any other president. Who's the big spender, now???

Labels are so counter productive. Can you even define what you mean by LIBERAL? or does it just mean someone who sees bush for the idiot he really is.?

But I would also say that it's too soon to say that the Bush policy of pre-emption is a bad thing, either.



How can you say a policy of pre-emption is ever a good policy?

WHat if Saddam would have thought that?

What if North Korea adopted that policy?

WHat if Iran decided to 'get them before they get us'?

Every nation listed on the Axis of Evil would be immediately justified in pre-emptively attacking us because they are afraid we MIGHT attack them?

In fact, every nation of the world would be justified in attacking us, since WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND REFUSE TO DISARM THEM OR LET UN INSPECTORS IN.

Insanity.

How can you say a policy of pre-emption is ever a good policy?

WHat if Saddam would have thought that?

What if North Korea adopted that policy?

WHat if Iran decided to 'get them before they get us'?

Every nation listed on the Axis of Evil would be immediately justified in pre-emptively attacking us because they are afraid we MIGHT attack them?

In fact, every nation of the world would be justified in attacking us, since WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND REFUSE TO DISARM THEM OR LET UN INSPECTORS IN.

Insanity.

Iraq-1991
North Korea-1951
Iran-Well they dont go around invading their neighbors, they'd rather just fund Hezzbollah and Islamic Jihad

Two of those three have used pre-emption before.

The US doesnt sell WMDs, and infact is in the process of disarming chunks of its nuclear arsenal as well as assisting the Russians in disarming chunks of their nuclear arsenal as well. There is no need for UN Inspectors to look over our nuclear stockpile because frankly we arent the threat to the planet. There is a nuclear chain of command. The President can not just push a button and make the world go boom. There actually needs to be other cabniet ministers agreeing as well for it to occur. Why? Nuclear failsafe. Keep one man from blowing up the planet.

The US has banned all by itself the use of chemical and biological weapons for use in war, we've removed neutron bombs and artillery shells from our arsenals. We no longer have nuclear tropedos, or cruise missiles. The Peacekeeper MIRVs(brand new) are all going to be retired by 2007 in favor of the old single warhead Minuteman IIIs. I wish you folks on the left would stop bitching about the US nuclear arsenal. We dont go around selling ICBMs, and we dont go around giving our nuclear secrets to others.

QUOTE, WITH MY COMMENTS ADDED IN BOLD

Iraq-1991
North Korea-1951
Iran-Well they dont go around invading their neighbors, they'd rather just fund Hezzbollah and Islamic Jihad(both aimed at getting the infidel out of their internal politics, just as we would do if the Muslims were trying to force their ideas down our throats with military presence)

Two of those three have used pre-emption before. (and it was wrong when they did it, correct?)

The US doesnt sell WMDs, (i beg your pardon? we are the biggest arms dealers in the world) and infact is in the process of disarming chunks of its nuclear arsenal as well as assisting the Russians in disarming chunks of their nuclear arsenal as well (what about the 'mini-nukes' Bush is proposing and advocating?). There is no need for UN Inspectors to look over our nuclear stockpile because frankly we arent the threat to the planet (unfortunately, 80% of the civilized world disagrees with you. they list Bush as the most dangerous man on the planet). There is a nuclear chain of command. The President can not just push a button and make the world go boom yeah, just like there are checks and balances to keep the president from declaring war by himself. There actually needs to be other cabniet ministers agreeing as well for it to occur(sorry, we have no Cabinet Ministers that hold ANY authority in the US. they are strictly advisors). Why? Nuclear failsafe. Keep one man from blowing up the planet (but its okay for him to bomb the cr*p out of it one country at a time?)

The US has banned all by itself the use of chemical and biological weapons for use in war (yeah, thats why we have depleted uranium tipped munitions being used in Iraq), we've removed neutron bombs and artillery shells from our arsenals. We no longer have nuclear tropedos, or cruise missiles. The Peacekeeper MIRVs(brand new) are all going to be retired by 2007 in favor of the old single warhead Minuteman IIIs (how is this not WMD???). I wish you folks on the left would stop bitching about the US nuclear arsenal. We dont go around selling ICBMs (do some research on where our allies got nuclear capabilities--reality check), and we dont go around giving our nuclear secrets to others (silly, the instructions for creating a nuclear bomb are published on the internet what century are you living in? with the size of the US military, we can destroy the planet several times over without nukes. we have MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITIES AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM).

i would be happy to post links to sources backing up any of my statements. Ask and you shall receive.

Bush screwed your economy... The reason was for oil.

I'm sorry, this cracks me up! Gas prices are as high as they've ever been. Where IS this war oil? If that were the case, gas would be 50 cents a gallon by now. I wish you people would invent a new alterior motive--one that isn't dismissed daily at the pumps.

for the first time in history, the gas shortage/high prices are not caused by a lack of crude oil, but by a lack of refining capabilities.

THe US has not kept up with the demand when it comes to oil refineries.

In case anyone wants to continue this topic with me, or ask for links, you will have to telegram me through NS.

Im outa here, and wont probalby get back to this forum any time soon.

I'm sorry, this cracks me up! Gas prices are as high as they've ever been. Where IS this war oil? If that were the case, gas would be 50 cents a gallon by now. I wish you people would invent a new alterior motive--one that isn't dismissed daily at the pumps.
What you perhaps fail to understand is not what the gas prices are right now, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the US now occupies Iraq which has the world's 2nd largest known reserves. Therefore, the US has an oil bank account so to speak to prevent from being cut off from future supplies.

Originally Posted by New York and Jersey
Iraq-1991
North Korea-1951
Iran-Well they dont go around invading their neighbors, they'd rather just fund Hezzbollah and Islamic Jihad(both aimed at getting the infidel out of their internal politics, just as we would do if the Muslims were trying to force their ideas down our throats with military presence)

Umm...Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are anti Israel...by your definition Hezbollah based in Lebanon should be trying to kick Syria out since Syria screws with the internal politcs of Lebanon.

Two of those three have used pre-emption before. (and it was wrong when they did it, correct?)
Right, South Korea and Kuwait didnt do anything to the world.

It cant be said the same for Iraq, or North Korea. Or North Vietnam who pre-emptively invaded South Vietnam. But hey you arent really being nonbiased.

(i beg your pardon? we are the biggest arms dealers in the world)

Guns and bullets by definition are not WMDs. F-15s and 16s are not WMDs, neither are Arleigh Brukes sold to Japan.

(what about the 'mini-nukes' Bush is proposing and advocating?).

Link. I've heard of the nuclear bunkerbuster to replace the current one the Clinton administration built in 1995 but I havent heard the mini nuke story. And I bet you dont know what a mini nuke is yourself.

(unfortunately, 80% of the civilized world disagrees with you. they list Bush as the most dangerous man on the planet).

Right and fortunately enough personal bias does not equal reality.

(sorry, we have no Cabinet Ministers that hold ANY authority in the US. they are strictly advisors).

(but its okay for him to bomb the cr*p out of it one country at a time?)

The Secretary of Defense and State would disagree with you. Homeland Security Director would also disagree with you. They hold tremendous authority.

(yeah, thats why we have depleted uranium tipped munitions being used in Iraq), we've removed neutron bombs and artillery shells from our arsenals. We no longer have nuclear tropedos, or cruise missiles. The Peacekeeper MIRVs(brand new) are all going to be retired by 2007 in favor of the old single warhead Minuteman IIIs (how is this not WMD???).

Uranium tipped munitions are not WMDs. They do not kill in the thousands. They do not inspire terror in people over their usage. People think OMG radition every time they hear the world uranium. Give me a break. And maybe your not paying attention but the US is REDUCING its arsenal of nuclear weapons, and removing BRAND NEW weapons from the arsenal because the US is following the SALT acts and removing MIRV warheads from the arsenal. Furthermore the US is removing four Ballistic Missile Submarines from its service and converting them to other duties.

(do some research on where our allies got nuclear capabilities--reality check)
The British and French developed nuclear capabilities on their own. Infact the US joint built the bomb with the British who initially started the project. It was moved to the US out of security concerns.

(silly, the instructions for creating a nuclear bomb are published on the internet what century are you living in? with the size of the US military, we can destroy the planet several times over without nukes. we have MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITIES AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM).

...Go check your facts. 1)You can not find info on how to build a nuclear weapon. It is FAR FAR more complex than some would have you believe. 2)With the size of the US military...are you kidding me? The US military is having problems over not having enough troops for combat in Iraq..and your going to tell me we have enough to destroy the world without nukes? You are in need of reality check little boy/girl.

Bremer's Illegal Orders Give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy (http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/27629.html)

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq . They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [ Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq , written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

Hurray for "democracy" in Iraq. Such a deal Benny!!

Bremer's Illegal Orders Give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy (http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/27629.html)

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq . They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [ Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq , written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

Hurray for "democracy" in Iraq. Such a deal Benny!!

This would be shocking and outragous..if economic policy=democracy. This would also be shocking and outragous if the new elected Iraqi government wasnt the one which was tasked with creating a Constitution. Not setting up a fundamental structure of government. This would also be shocking and outrageous if Halliburton did more than just provide logistical support to the US military and building a few schools in the Kurdish area. The article is six months old, and things arent the same anymore. Bremmer isnt incharge and hasnt been for awhile..and Alwahi isnt around anymore either.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

Did Hell freeze over?!! If it did, i'm going skiing. Seriously though, this isnt a joke?

This would be shocking and outragous..if economic policy=democracy. This would also be shocking and outragous if the new elected Iraqi government wasnt the one which was tasked with creating a Constitution. Not setting up a fundamental structure of government. This would also be shocking and outrageous if Halliburton did more than just provide logistical support to the US military and building a few schools in the Kurdish area. The article is six months old, and things arent the same anymore. Bremmer isnt incharge and hasnt been for awhile..and Alwahi isnt around anymore either.
Perhaps you didn't read the fine print?

"Further, the interim constitution of Iraq , written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn."

For the full impact, Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations).

Perhaps you didn't read the fine print?

"Further, the interim constitution of Iraq , written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn."

Virtually impossible..not impossible. Unless you've got a crystal ball, tomorrows NY State lotto numbers, I'd rather not hear your typical doom and gloom banter over every little thing Bush does.

Again economic policy does not equal democracy. Whatever Bremmer did to the economy of Iraq didnt affect the elections that took place right? They didnt in some way allow a dictator to come to power right?

Virtually impossible..not impossible. Unless you've got a crystal ball, tomorrows NY State lotto numbers, I'd rather not hear your typical doom and gloom banter over every little thing Bush does.

Again economic policy does not equal democracy. Whatever Bremmer did to the economy of Iraq didnt affect the elections that took place right? They didnt in some way allow a dictator to come to power right?
What Bremer's Orders have done is hijack the Iraqi economy, even to the point that thousands of years old seed stock has been replaced by US produced supplies. The anti-American thread detailed this well.

This is not a little thing. This is raping a country:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81
PATENT, INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION,
INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND PLANT VARIETY LAW (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf)

What Bremer's Orders have done is hijack the Iraqi economy, even to the point that thousands of years old seed stock has been replaced by US produced supplies. The anti-American thread detailed this well.

This is not a little thing. This is raping a country:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81
PATENT, INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION,
INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND PLANT VARIETY LAW (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf)


Are you honestly going to tell me, that the link..which goes over Patent Law..in which Bremmer states he's following guidelines set down by the UN..is raping the Iraqi economy?

We're more effective at waging war. To the point where we can keep the casualty count below the point where the war becomes incredibly unpopular at home.

That's the point.


Somehow, I get the uneasy feeling you see that as a Good Thing. Is a casualty only an inconvenience to you when it gets publicity?

Of course, the arrogance here is worrying about one thousand five hundred dead Americans - Americans who signed up for serving, who were given guns and sent there - caring more about them than about a hundred times that many dead Iraqis who paid the price for this 'freedom' - people who were neither armed nor had the choice to be involved in this war. The fact that anyone still claims this is for their own good - in the very face of harsh criticism from Iraqis themselves, no less - is ridiculous at best, and a sign of our failure as a civilization at worst.

Somehow, I get the uneasy feeling you see that as a Good Thing. Is a casualty only an inconvenience to you when it gets publicity?

Of course, the arrogance here is worrying about one thousand five hundred dead Americans - Americans who signed up for serving, who were given guns and sent there - caring more about them than about a hundred times that many dead Iraqis who paid the price for this 'freedom' - people who were neither armed nor had the choice to be involved in this war. The fact that anyone still claims this is for their own good - in the very face of harsh criticism from Iraqis themselves, no less - is ridiculous at best, and a sign of our failure as a civilization at worst.

I am making no judgments personally on whether this is Good or Bad, unlike you.

However, I do note that the US, by this capability, is able to prosecute a war without being stopped by public opinion. Quite unlike the Vietnam War.

How can you say a policy of pre-emption is ever a good policy?

I guess you're forgetting that if you want to win a modern war (or stand a good chance of it, you have to attack first. You need to re-read the military history of the 20th Century.

WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND REFUSE TO DISARM THEM OR LET UN INSPECTORS IN.

I suppose you're forgetting that the US nuclear arsenal has been reduced from 20,000 or so warheads down to less than 3000, by means of agreements with the Russians - where we let their inspectors sit here and look at the missiles and warheads being dismantled - where we have disarmed about 80 percent or more of our Cold War arsenal, and those inspectors LIVE HERE. I guess you missed the end of the Cold War altogether.

Stupidity.

I guess you're forgetting that if you want to win a modern war (or stand a good chance of it, you have to attack first. You need to re-read the military history of the 20th Century.


I suppose you're forgetting that the US nuclear arsenal has been reduced from 20,000 or so warheads down to less than 3000, by means of agreements with the Russians - where we let their inspectors sit here and look at the missiles and warheads being dismantled - where we have disarmed about 80 percent or more of our Cold War arsenal, and those inspectors LIVE HERE. I guess you missed the end of the Cold War altogether.

Stupidity.

I dont think they were alive for the end of the Cold War. My little brother doesnt remember a Soviet Union..but I sure as fuck do. I was about 6 when the Union broke up and I remember asking why it was so important..and I remember having nightmares because my grandfather told me they had weapons pointed at us to kill us all. At least there is less of them now than in 1960-70-80

Are you honestly going to tell me, that the link..which goes over Patent Law..in which Bremmer states he's following guidelines set down by the UN..is raping the Iraqi economy?
The UN Resolutions do not rubber stamp Bremer's Orders which basically re-writes most Iraqi laws. Yes Bremer's Orders are a raping of the Iraqi economy.

Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq 's existing laws. For this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United States ) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law." ......

The Bremer orders are immoral and illegal and must be repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their own economic and political future.

I posted this link (http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/27629.html) before, but I guess you did not read it?

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

The only foes of Bush that this is on about are his foes within the US government, I think that you'll find that many of his foes around the world in other govenments think it is a load of rubbish. Quite possibly the reason that a load of these foes think that the US actions are having nothing but good democracy building effects around the middle east are also relying on the terminally biased US media for their reports on how the US is saving and responsible for introducing democracy in every country across the middle east.

Amongst other reasons that I think quite a lot of Bushs home based foes may be now changing their tune is because the people/businesses of their own states are the principal beneficiaries of all this "introduction of democracy." Note that I don't say the Iraqis or anybody else, because they're not the ones getting the dollars at the end of the day.

Yet again you completely ignore the facts that Iran, as a prime example, was far closer to reaching democracy before the latest US forays into "democracy building" via invasion and theft.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.
when it is news for half the country to decide that maybe the war we're already fighting has one upside, that's a sad state of affairs.

The UN Resolutions do not rubber stamp Bremer's Orders which basically re-writes most Iraqi laws. Yes Bremer's Orders are a raping of the Iraqi economy.


Yes, we read your link. Yes, the UN Resolutions are not a rubber stamp.

However, international lassitude is a rubber stamp.

Yes, we read your link. Yes, the UN Resolutions are not a rubber stamp.

However, international lassitude is a rubber stamp.

So the fact that you can bludgeon people into a state whereby they are so exhausted from fighting against your stupefying policies that you can then slip something as wrong as this through makes it right does it?

So the fact that you can bludgeon people into a state whereby they are so exhausted from fighting against your stupefying policies that you can then slip something as wrong as this through makes it right does it?

I think you are under the mistaken impression that I'm making a statement about whether something is "right" or "wrong".

I don't make that distinction, as it has little bearing on the actual motivation that any nation has for its actions.

I guess you're forgetting that if you want to win a modern war (or stand a good chance of it, you have to attack first. You need to re-read the military history of the 20th Century.
According to the UN Charter, to which the US is a signator, the only permissible pre-emptive strike allowed is when there is an "imment threat".

Also the Geneva Conventions Art 57 states:

(c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

I suppose you're forgetting that the US nuclear arsenal has been reduced from 20,000 or so warheads down to less than 3000, by means of agreements with the Russians - where we let their inspectors sit here and look at the missiles and warheads being dismantled - where we have disarmed about 80 percent or more of our Cold War arsenal, and those inspectors LIVE HERE. I guess you missed the end of the Cold War altogether.

Stupidity.
Your figures are slightly off?

The US has 8646 total strategic warheads as of 2002. I am not sure in that includes the 480 which are deployed in various countries in Europe.

I lived through the Cold War and by the very actions of the current US administrations, it appears that we are now entering Cold War 2, with the Iranians and the North Koreans determined to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the US.

Of course the US plans to weaponize space is another concern that could lead to widespread poliferation of WMD.

The only foes of Bush that this is on about are his foes within the US government, I think that you'll find that many of his foes around the world in other govenments think it is a load of rubbish. Quite possibly the reason that a load of these foes think that the US actions are having nothing but good democracy building effects around the middle east are also relying on the terminally biased US media for their reports on how the US is saving and responsible for introducing democracy in every country across the middle east.

Amongst other reasons that I think quite a lot of Bushs home based foes may be now changing their tune is because the people/businesses of their own states are the principal beneficiaries of all this "introduction of democracy." Note that I don't say the Iraqis or anybody else, because they're not the ones getting the dollars at the end of the day.

Yet again you completely ignore the facts that Iran, as a prime example, was far closer to reaching democracy before the latest US forays into "democracy building" via invasion and theft.
My friend, you do understand what quotations are, yes? *I* didn't "ignore" anything. If you have a problem with the article, take it up with the Washington Times.

My friend, you do understand what quotations are, yes? *I* didn't "ignore" anything. If you have a problem with the article, take it up with the Washington Times.


Ok, substitute, "journalists" or "they" for "you" wherever necessary and all my comments still stand.

You did post the article though and still seem to think it has some kind of merit in backing up your opinions, so I'm taking it up with you, not the Washington Times.

Are you going to start picking me up on speeling and punctuation now to distract from the fact that it is a crock?

Let me look at the title once more:

Hmmm,

"Bush Foes Admit Benefits of Iraq Policy"

The benefits of the Iraq policy are that America gets its hands upon massive oil reserves and a load of new business at extortionate rates whilst distracting its people from the massive accounting shortfalls of US fiscal policy.

Even I won't dispute the facts that the US policy towards Iraq has its benefits, for the USA in the short term. I will dispute that they are good for it in the long term and that they are good for anybody else in the world in the long term too. As for the benefits to the Iraqi people and the rest of the middle east...

Whiilst we're being picky, if you're just going to post an article, put in some kind of comment of your own on it, so that it isn't just seen to be your viewpoint.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.

I just heard about this this morning. Even Teddy Kennedy admitted that Bush's plan seems to be working.

WTG Bush. Keep up the good work.

If you're going to do that, why not just compare every battle to the Somme?

Or Shilo, Gettysburg, Antietam or any other major battle that saw massive amounts of casualties. This is bloodless compared to past military engagements.

I'm sorry, this cracks me up! Gas prices are as high as they've ever been. Where IS this war oil? If that were the case, gas would be 50 cents a gallon by now. I wish you people would invent a new alterior motive--one that isn't dismissed daily at the pumps.

And by the Oil Market itself.

for the first time in history, the gas shortage/high prices are not caused by a lack of crude oil, but by a lack of refining capabilities.

THe US has not kept up with the demand when it comes to oil refineries.

But you also seem to have forgotten that the demand for oil in China and India is increasing daily. Oil strikes in Nigeria, political instability in Venezuela, all of this drives the oil market. Thanks for playing though.

Did Hell freeze over?!! If it did, i'm going skiing. Seriously though, this isnt a joke?

Its no joke Marrakech. It is 100% real.

I dont think they were alive for the end of the Cold War. My little brother doesnt remember a Soviet Union..but I sure as fuck do. I was about 6 when the Union broke up and I remember asking why it was so important..and I remember having nightmares because my grandfather told me they had weapons pointed at us to kill us all. At least there is less of them now than in 1960-70-80

I was 8 and I remember the Soviet Union

Don't get your hopes up. If the posters on this forum are any indication, even if everything comes out PERFECT they'll say

a) it's all a lie
b) it's all a conspiracy
c) Bush had nothing to do with it
d) the Democrats would have done a better job (but they won't say how)
e) you're still lying

It's been my experience on this forum so far.

I would have to say I concur.

Although some are willing to admit the truth, some have fallen so far into that Mystical Magical Fantasy Land that there is likely no hope for their sane return... ;)

We will likely have to go on with civilization without them I fear. :p

Regards,
Gaar

when it is news for half the country to decide that maybe the war we're already fighting has one upside, that's a sad state of affairs.

One upside?

Democracies now in Afghanistan and Iraq...

I guess you also missed what happened in Libya?

Or what is now happening in Egypt as well?

Or Suadi Arabia?

And those are just a few of the Countries reacting to the want of DEMOCRACY in just a few very short months after Iraq has held their ELECTIONS!

Something about that Liberals don't understand?

It's called the INFORMATION AGE people! Satellites are going up across the Middle East in droves, and as they are people are actually seeing how the entire World lives and they are not "buying" what their Leadership is telling them any more.

Watch and LEARN!

Regards,
Gaar

How amusing. Everybody lining up to decide if the war was good or bad.
The war was WRONG for these reasons:
1) The principle reason for going to war (WMD's) was based on faulty intelligence.
2) The U.S. economy has been hurt badly by the war.

That isn't to say that the war might not turn out to be a force for good. We won't know that untill we see how the middle east changes over the next ten years. For instance, if American troops are still fighting in Iraq ten years from now, and this "wave of democracy" is short-lived, it will have been bad foreign policy. It will have been especially bad if the idea of pre-emptive war catches on elsewhere (lets say, oh, China and Russia)
On the other hand, if the neocons are right and it leeds to a dominoe-effect democratization (is that a word?) of the middle-east, it will have been good on the whole.

2) The U.S. economy has been hurt badly by the war.


Really? It has?

Last I heard, our economy was in a recovery - rather steady so far.

If you figure that over a trillion dollars changes hands every day on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, and you compare that to how much money is collected and spent by the Federal Government (2.6 trillion per year), you can see that investors in this country have far, far more of an effect than expenditures by our Federal Government.

Even if you figure that the Iraq War is costing 200 billion per year, that's not that much - more money than that changes hands in a few hours on Wall Street.

Really? It has?

Last I heard, our economy was in a recovery - rather steady so far.

If you figure that over a trillion dollars changes hands every day on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, and you compare that to how much money is collected and spent by the Federal Government (2.6 trillion per year), you can see that investors in this country have far, far more of an effect than expenditures by our Federal Government.

Even if you figure that the Iraq War is costing 200 billion per year, that's not that much - more money than that changes hands in a few hours on Wall Street.

Well, looking at a couple things, I came to that conclusion.
1) The American dollar is down lately against all the major currencies. For instance, the Canadian dollar closed yesterday against the greenback at the highest level in five years.
2) This years American federal deficit is likely to be the largest ever- and the national debt will increase. For its current levels see:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
3) How much the Iraq war had to do with this I don't know, but besides the cost of the war, I know I've heard of and seen boycotts of all American products in several places. Even here in Canada, where anti-US sentiment seems to be on the decline, I know people who won't buy any American products, simply because of the country's war in Iraq.

I apologize if I overstated the effects of the Iraq war, but you can't possibly argu that it has been good for the economy.

With the dollar down, that means that US firms will be selling more stuff overseas.

On the other hand, half of our Federal debt is in foreign hands. But, it's such a large amount that no one can call us on it.

We tried that "don't buy from country X" thing here. It isn't really workable, because most products today come from such a wide variety of source nations that you can't effective boycott a country.

Try buying a car that doesn't have a single part made in the United States. And if you're so sure, try verifying the chain of production for every part.

Idiots here in the 1970s tried to do that with Japanese items. It failed miserably.

It's called multi-national corporations - most of which have more money and clout than most nations on earth.

With the dollar down, that means that US firms will be selling more stuff overseas.

On the other hand, half of our Federal debt is in foreign hands. But, it's such a large amount that no one can call us on it.

We tried that "don't buy from country X" thing here. It isn't really workable, because most products today come from such a wide variety of source nations that you can't effective boycott a country.

Try buying a car that doesn't have a single part made in the United States. And if you're so sure, try verifying the chain of production for every part.

Idiots here in the 1970s tried to do that with Japanese items. It failed miserably.

It's called multi-national corporations - most of which have more money and clout than most nations on earth.

Oh, I didn't say that the boycotts were workable, and I think the effect of them is probably fairly miniscule. I just wanted something else to back up my point- that the war in Iraq had a negative effect on the US economy.
As for the debt, no one will call you on it, but the money spent servicing it is immense.

However, I do note that the US, by this capability, is able to prosecute a war without being stopped by public opinion.

Wich is exactly the kind of thing that makes people feel uneasy. Before you know it, the US president will be like:"hey let's start another war, the public won't care anyway". And you're not telling me that that is a good thing. It's not only US soldiers getting killed in wars. Other people die too. People who don't have the advanced equipment and training that the US soldiers have. Do you care about them?

This preposterous line of discussion, "Bush Foes Admit Benefits of Iraq Policy", calls to mind the delightful piece in the Onion some months ago about how much the dead Iraqi's killed by American bombs would have enjoyed democracy. Also, it is equally similar to the satire of the Daily Show in so far as regional outpouring of democratic will of the people seems united in hating the United States.

Benefits of Bush's war? What ridiculous nonsense! It's akin to comforting the parent of a slain baby with, "Well, ma'am, think of all the money you'll save on diapers".

Please!

I'm sorry, this cracks me up! Gas prices are as high as they've ever been. Where IS this war oil? If that were the case, gas would be 50 cents a gallon by now. I wish you people would invent a new alterior motive--one that isn't dismissed daily at the pumps.One could theorize that it's not the American people who are meant to benefit from the oil supply, but the oil companies that now have exclusive access to Iraq's oil fields. God as my witness, oil tycoons will never go hungry again!!!

Or Shilo, Gettysburg, Antietam or any other major battle that saw massive amounts of casualties. This is bloodless compared to past military engagements.
Yeah it is bloodless as far as you are concerned. You are sitting at your computer and not facing bullets. Go tell the families of the GI's that were killed that it is "bloodless", go tell the 10,000 US casualties that it is "bloodless", and then finally go tell all the Iraqi casualities, which is far greater number that it is "bloodless". :eek:

Really? It has?

Last I heard, our economy was in a recovery - rather steady so far.

If you figure that over a trillion dollars changes hands every day on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, and you compare that to how much money is collected and spent by the Federal Government (2.6 trillion per year), you can see that investors in this country have far, far more of an effect than expenditures by our Federal Government.

Even if you figure that the Iraq War is costing 200 billion per year, that's not that much - more money than that changes hands in a few hours on Wall Street.

minor nitpicky point, only about 60 billion is transacted daily on the NYSE. There are other exchanges though, but even if you include them, the figure will not approach 1 trillion. These numbers change dramatically if you want to include fixed income markets, which are far larger than equity markets.

Yeah it is bloodless as far as you are concerned. You are sitting at your computer and not facing bullets. Go tell the families of the GI's that were killed that it is "bloodless", go tell the 10,000 US casualties that it is "bloodless", and then finally go tell all the Iraqi casualities, which is far greater number that it is "bloodless". :eek:

Not as far as I am concerned. As far as the reaction of the American public is concerned.

You know - the people who got upset at 6000 dead US soldiers a year during the Vietnam War.

Evidently, there's a threshold. That, and the typical American probably can't distinguish between one Arab/Islamic person and another. So they probably don't care. At least the Viet Cong never had to suffer the onus of some other Oriental group flying planes into US buildings. Makes it easier to generate sympathy among people who can't tell the difference.

This preposterous line of discussion, "Bush Foes Admit Benefits of Iraq Policy", calls to mind the delightful piece in the Onion some months ago about how much the dead Iraqi's killed by American bombs would have enjoyed democracy. Also, it is equally similar to the satire of the Daily Show in so far as regional outpouring of democratic will of the people seems united in hating the United States.

Benefits of Bush's war? What ridiculous nonsense! It's akin to comforting the parent of a slain baby with, "Well, ma'am, think of all the money you'll save on diapers".

Please!

What a silly argument you make my friend...

Do YOU believe that the Iraqi's, who have died at the hand of the SH Regime for decades, would have not cherished Freedom and Democracy?

Do YOU also believe that the American's that have DIED bringing Freedom and Democracy to another Nation would not have enjoyed those same Rights that they ALREADY had back Home?

Do you believe also that those American's who DIED during our Revolutionary War would have not enjoyed the Freedom and Democracy that was being fought for?

Do YOU believe that those who died during our Civil War, trying to bring Freedom to a race of men, would not have enjoyed the Freedom THEY ALREADY had?

Freedom ISN'T FREE and War is HELL!

Something about those two things YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

The real argument is does the end justify the means.

I supported the war but my other half opposed it and not because she's a pacifist. She opposed it because she did not believe that war was the right way to go about the objectives. I argued it was the only way.

It is really an argument about ends justifying means.

Bush Foes Admit Benefits Of Iraq Policy
Washington Times ( MAR. 09)

Some of the harshest Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have grudgingly admitted that it has helped spark a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. Democrats aren't taking to the Senate floor to praise Mr. Bush's role in the spectacle of Lebanese protesters demanding independence from Syrian control, or the elections in Iraq, or the news that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have committed to freer elections. But many critics of the war, which Lebanese democrats cite as a turning point in their cause, are slowly admitting that the president may have done the right thing in quickly taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who delivered a famous "chicken hawk" speech deriding the war advocates in the Bush administration and voted against funding the war, said yesterday that recent developments in Lebanon and Syria suggest the war was a force for good.
Interesting. The Washing Times is definitely as right leaning as the New York Times is left leaning, so take it with a grain of salt. Maybe it's literally true, maybe it's exaggerated, but either way it's interesting. Honestly, I had hoped that Iraq would be a complete and utter failure so that there would be less incentive to go off on future imperialistic campaigns. If Iraq does work out well, that will only encourage more Republican supported imperialism.

What a silly argument you make my friend...

Do YOU believe that the Iraqi's, who have died at the hand of the SH Regime for decades, would have not cherished Freedom and Democracy?

Do YOU also believe that the American's that have DIED bringing Freedom and Democracy to another Nation would not have enjoyed those same Rights that they ALREADY had back Home?

Do you believe also that those American's who DIED during our Revolutionary War would have not enjoyed the Freedom and Democracy that was being fought for?

Do YOU believe that those who died during our Civil War, trying to bring Freedom to a race of men, would not have enjoyed the Freedom THEY ALREADY had?

Freedom ISN'T FREE and War is HELL!

Something about those two things YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Do you honestly believe this war was about freeing people from a corrupt dictator? How many corrupt dictators are there in the world? Screw the world, just in Africa? How about three million dead Africans in the Congo? What is being done about that? How about Darfur?
Although I agree that the argument you were fighting was silly, the fact that you imply the Iraq war was about freedom is absurd. The Iraq war was fought because W and Rummy believed it was in America's best interest. America always has and always will act in her own self-interest, and to expect otherwise is asinine. But to try and cloth this war in altruism is also blatantly incorrect.

Yeah it is bloodless as far as you are concerned. You are sitting at your computer and not facing bullets. Go tell the families of the GI's that were killed that it is "bloodless", go tell the 10,000 US casualties that it is "bloodless", and then finally go tell all the Iraqi casualities, which is far greater number that it is "bloodless". :eek:

Compared to past conflict CH, this IS A BLOODLESS WAR!!!!!!! Fifteen Hundred dead in 2 years compared to other wars that lasted for a few months to a decade, this isn't too bad. I suggest you read up on how many casualties suffered per year in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. This is bloodless. Thanks for showing your ignorance in matters of military history.

Congrats,

Bush screwed your economy. First by spending billons on the Iraq war, second on spending even more on keeping troops there. The reason was for oil. Had he had the foresight he would have instead invested in the Hydrogen industry and started pouring money into high speed rail systems such as Maglev rail systems to get people out of their cars and start the concept of satellite cities. Now instead the US had a $7.7 trillion debt and growing, uses 20 million barrels of oil per day, 12 million of which they have to import DAILY. Instead of paying down the debt he gave tax cuts, instead of dealing with the debt he plans to privitize social assistance. Congrats on your economy being screwed and you being on the verge of the second part of a double dip recession! I honestly am not happy with it, since my economy (in Canada) will follow yours since whatever your economy does mine does right after. Still, I find it troublesome that individuals continue to debate the war while your economy is in such bad shape that even Greenspan is noting worry about it.
This looks like nothing but mindless Bush bashing. I don't like Bush, but I'm not going to blame him personally for EVERY single thing that doesn't go right.

Further, where are you getting the idea of an impending "double dip recession" from? GDP growth has been positive since the 4th quarter of 2001. The American economy is all but completely recovered and is gearing up to go into another expansion phase.

As much as I don't like Bush and only republicans being in power, I'm not going to make up data to justify my dislike, that would only serve to discredit me.

Do you honestly believe this war was about freeing people from a corrupt dictator? How many corrupt dictators are there in the world? Screw the world, just in Africa? How about three million dead Africans in the Congo? What is being done about that? How about Darfur?
Although I agree that the argument you were fighting was silly, the fact that you imply the Iraq war was about freedom is absurd. The Iraq war was fought because W and Rummy believed it was in America's best interest. America always has and always will act in her own self-interest, and to expect otherwise is asinine. But to try and cloth this war in altruism is also blatantly incorrect.

No, we were there to start the pacification of the Middle East. Big plan.

All other reasons given are a smokescreen and a ruse.

Go back to your seats - there's nothing to see here. Move along.

Do you honestly believe this war was about freeing people from a corrupt dictator? How many corrupt dictators are there in the world? Screw the world, just in Africa? How about three million dead Africans in the Congo? What is being done about that? How about Darfur?
Although I agree that the argument you were fighting was silly, the fact that you imply the Iraq war was about freedom is absurd. The Iraq war was fought because W and Rummy believed it was in America's best interest. America always has and always will act in her own self-interest, and to expect otherwise is asinine. But to try and cloth this war in altruism is also blatantly incorrect.

And how many of those African Nations have the 4th largest Army in the World that have occupied the whole of a neighboring Nation?

And how many of those Nations are and have been ignoring 17 UN Resolutions for better than a decade now?

And how many have been known to be developing WMD's and have close ties to several Terrorist Groups throughout the World?

And why is it that YOU are unaware of the actions the U.S. and the UN have ALREADY taken in Africa? America has ALREADY LOST their loved ones on African SOIL trying to bring peace and aid, why is it YOU don't know that?

Regards,
Gaar

(immoral action here being invading a country that never attacked us first, reneging on our UN responsibilites, lying and manufacturing an excuse to go to war, and using excessive force, destroying the nation's infrastructure and using depleted uranium in the munitions.)
Actually, UN planes (some of which were US aircraft) were being shot at by Iraqis during a period of cease fire. Breaking a cease fire is enough reason to go kick ass, but the UN let it go on for 11 YEARS. The UN made themselves impotent by placing resolutions and not backing them up, by allowing Iraqis to take aggressive actions against UN aircraft on a regular basis and do NOTHING about it. The countries in the UN who were against the war didn't want their "Food for Oil" program messed up since they were reaping huge profits off of the backs of starving Iraqis. Yeah, the UN ranks REAL high with me over Iraq. I don't think they could have failed as a government body any more then they did.

Imagine a police officer saying to a criminal who's shooting at him, "Surrender now or else I'll demand that you surrender again!" Yep, that'll work. :rolleyes:

And how many of those African Nations have the 4th largest Army in the World that have occupied the whole of a neighboring Nation?

And how many of those Nations are and have been ignoring 17 UN Resolutions for better than a decade now?

And how many have been known to be developing WMD's and have close ties to several Terrorist Groups throughout the World?

And why is it that YOU are unaware of the actions the U.S. and the UN have ALREADY taken in Africa? America has ALREADY LOST their loved ones on African SOIL trying to bring peace and aid, why is it YOU don't know that?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, in point of fact the Congolese conflict is between not only Congolese rebels but also the armies of invading neighboring nations.

In point of fact, untill a recent Supreme court ruling, the US was in violation of the UN resolution regarding the Rights of Children (that people under 18 cannot be executed for crimes they have commited). Also, the majority of petty African dictatorships have run afoul of the UN in at least one resolution.

Saddam's developemtn of WMD's is still debateable, and as for close ties to terror, many, many african countries have them, particularly in the north.

I am aware that the United States has lost soldiers on African soil, and it is tragic and regrettable. However, the number of US soldiers lost does not register when compared to the losses of NGOs in Africa, or with the losses of UN peacekeepers*. america has never, ever commited to bringing feedom and democracy to those suffering under the hands of African tyrants, nor is it in their interest too. I certainly don't expect them too,so try and understand that I have my doubts about US government altruism.

*Case in point- In Rwanda, long after the US govt. had told all Americans to evacuate, the Red Cross stayed, and lost 34 of its aid workers. The decision to stay was not made by the govt, but by the individuals who so tragically gave their lives in the service of others.

What's sad, is that you are lumping 80% of Europeans, all of the Green Party, Socialist party, Libertarian party and Social Progressives all under the label of LIBERAL.

there are plenty of conservatives that are horrified at BUsh's fiscal policies. I thought the Liberals were supposed to be the ones who spent a lot of money. Bush went through a surplus and put us deeper in debt than any other president. Who's the big spender, now???

Labels are so counter productive. Can you even define what you mean by LIBERAL? or does it just mean someone who sees bush for the idiot he really is.?
"Conservative" fiscal policies are not held by republicans. They only say that to pay lip service to economic libertarians to keep them in line, but they don't really mean it. Reagan proved that, and Bush (with republican control over both houses of congress) is currently proving that. When republicans say "Spend less", what they REALLY mean is "spend less on programs we don't like and more on programs we do like, but keep the rhetoric to keep the economic libertarians coming to us in the hopes that one day we'll keep to our word of shrinking government, which we won't, but we'll give our buddies tax breaks as often as possible just to give the appearance of trying to cut taxes." In reality, they're counting on democrats to give them an excuse for not coming through with the promises that they have no intention of keeping. It's all BS and it pisses me off greatly. I REALLY wish we could get a few libertarians into congress to pressure some of those congressional wienies to actually do what they keep promising to do.

Shortly before this last November, the republicans drug out the "Fair Tax Bill" and promised to make a huge push for it. They didn't, it was just rhetoric to make the libertarians happy and keep them in line in the hopes that maybe it'll go through this time. The minute the election was over, the Fair Tax Bill got trashed . . . AGAIN! :mad:

Or Shilo, Gettysburg, Antietam or any other major battle that saw massive amounts of casualties. This is bloodless compared to past military engagements.
Just because a war is less bloody then previous wars, does not make it all right. Why spill ANY blood if it's not necessary?

The real argument is does the end justify the means.

I supported the war but my other half opposed it and not because she's a pacifist. She opposed it because she did not believe that war was the right way to go about the objectives. I argued it was the only way.

It is really an argument about ends justifying means.

Well according to the christian God, our Heavenly Father, no the ends do not justify the means, "Good intentions pave the way to hell."
Truer words are rarely spoken.

Ends never justify the means. If it is wrong, than it is wrong.
I opposed ity because the war wasn't the right way to go about it. It doubted all the claims the Bush said and I was right. All his claims for rationale were bunk.

I'd like to know how anyone can give that ends justify the means in another situation.

If they did: than Cheating should be legal. The ends that help you become what you wish (be a doctor because you pass school =pursuit of happiness) should override the means of cheating if thaty argument worked.

I can't fathom a situation that shows when ends justify the means.

I can't fathom a situation that shows when ends justify the means.

World War II was the greatest expense in human lives in the past century. Yet Hitler had to be stopped- surely going to war wwas justified?

Compared to past conflict CH, this IS A BLOODLESS WAR!!!!!!! Fifteen Hundred dead in 2 years compared to other wars that lasted for a few months to a decade, this isn't too bad. I suggest you read up on how many casualties suffered per year in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. This is bloodless. Thanks for showing your ignorance in matters of military history.
My friend, I am not ignorant of military history. I am well aware of the numbers involved. My father and his brothers (my uncles) fought in WW2, so I doubt you are going to give me a history lesson.

What you failed to grasp in my post to you, is that these wars are NOT "bloodless", and for you to suggest otherwise, then it would be your ignorance that is on display.

What also is worrisome is your total lack of compassion in making such a declaration. I can very well imagine some kid sitting at his computer, who has lost his father in this war, and reading YOUR words. Do you think that kid would agree that this war has been "bloodless"? No I didn't think so.

1) The American dollar is down lately against all the major currencies. For instance, the Canadian dollar closed yesterday against the greenback at the highest level in five years.
Experiencing close to 0% inflation for over 3 years while other countries experience normal, and in some cases, more then normal inflation will comparatively devalue the dollar, and that's jut fine by me. It doesn't effect my economy almost at all. As a matter of fact, it makes our exports cheaper, which will help shrink the import/export gap we currently have. As far as I'm concerned, keep the comparative devaluing of the dollar going!

Experiencing close to 0% inflation for over 3 years while other countries experience normal, and in some cases, more then normal inflation will comparatively devalue the dollar, and that's jut fine by me. It doesn't effect my economy almost at all. As a matter of fact, it makes our exports cheaper, which will help shrink the import/export gap we currently have. As far as I'm concerned, keep the comparative devaluing of the dollar going!

It also makes it more likely you will buy U.S. goods instead of Imports because the Imports will be more and more expensive.

Regards,
Gaar

Compared to past conflict CH, this IS A BLOODLESS WAR!!!!!!! Fifteen Hundred dead in 2 years compared to other wars that lasted for a few months to a decade, this isn't too bad. I suggest you read up on how many casualties suffered per year in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. This is bloodless. Thanks for showing your ignorance in matters of military history.
That's not bloodless, it's just less blood.

Just because a war is less bloody then previous wars, does not make it all right. Why spill ANY blood if it's not necessary?

Well excuse me for correcting that this was necessary. Look at the domino effect that has transpired in the region.

I do believe that the war was proper. I believe that the UN did everything it could not to get implicated in corruption and therefor stymied the Security Council from doing the proper thing. Russia and France ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions as well as the UN Cease fire agreement.

With this, yes the war was necessary and I'm glad Hussein is gone. The Middle East and somewhat safer now with Saddam gone.

Well excuse me for correcting that this was necessary. Look at the domino effect that has transpired in the region.

I do believe that the war was proper. I believe that the UN did everything it could not to get implicated in corruption and therefor stymied the Security Council from doing the proper thing. Russia and France ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions as well as the UN Cease fire agreement.

With this, yes the war was necessary and I'm glad Hussein is gone. The Middle East and somewhat safer now with Saddam gone.
I was one of those guys that Saddam was shooting at during the cease fire, so I took the whole matter rather personally while most everyone else on the planet is/was just just acting as an armchair quarterback. I'm aware of the 17 UN resolutions he broke in 12 years, my operation was one of them. I just don't think we should have put up with that junk. To draw it back even further, we shouldn't have been in that region of the world in the first place. Kuwait needed help from the UN, why does the UN always send the US as 90-95% of the power? Fuck them, let them put in a little more muscle and see how willing they are to stick their noses in everyone's business.

For that matter, why is the UN a governmental body rather then a neutral international forum? The very idea of an "international government" is convoluted and forces either them to have practically no power, or forces everyone else to have practically no power making domestic soverignty a null concept.

My friend, I am not ignorant of military history. I am well aware of the numbers involved. My father and his brothers (my uncles) fought in WW2, so I doubt you are going to give me a history lesson.

My dad was in Bosnia, the 1st Gulf War, Kosovo, and this war too. If you want to discuss Military History, I'm sure that you and I can do so in a civilized manner. However, you are ignorant of Military History because you are saying that too many people have died. Its too many when 1 dies however when you stack up the dead to the dead of Vietnam, WWI, WWII, and Korea (all international fights), this is nothing.

In terms of American Military History, it is also nothing. We have suffered far more casualties during the Civil War than we did in WWII as well as vietnam COMBINED!!!! We also lost more soldiers in the Revolutionary War than we have in this one. Casualty figures for that war are sketchy however. I could go one but then, you would just say something insulting.

What you failed to grasp in my post to you, is that these wars are NOT "bloodless", and for you to suggest otherwise, then it would be your ignorance that is on display.

Compared to Vietnam, it is bloodless. Yes we lost 1500 but we lost 50,000+ in Vietnam. We lost 400,000 in WWII! We lost more than 400,000 during the Civil War. Compared to those numbers, yes this is bloodless.

What also is worrisome is your total lack of compassion in making such a declaration. I can very well imagine some kid sitting at his computer, who has lost his father in this war, and reading YOUR words. Do you think that kid would agree that this war has been "bloodless"? No I didn't think so.

Sir, my father is a Lt. Colonel in the United States Air Force. I know full well what kids go through when they lose a parent. I also know what my dad suffered when he lost friends during Tehran AND in the 1st Gulf War. Those kids have nothing to be ashamed of. They father, mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, even grandfather or grandmother, are American Heroes. I honor our Dead Soldiers every single solitary day. I pray for their families every night. I pray for the safe return of our soldiers every night as well. I pray for peace every night. However, I am a realist! I know what the real world is like. I know that you have to fight to maintain peace and to prevent tyrants from taking over the neighborhood.

When you look at actual numbers, and I'm talking numbers nothing more, this war isn't bloody. War is hell but this war is mostly bloodless.

I was one of those guys that Saddam was shooting at during the cease fire, so I took the whole matter rather personally while most everyone else on the planet is/was just just acting as an armchair quarterback. I'm aware of the 17 UN resolutions he broke in 12 years, my operation was one of them. I just don't think we should have put up with that junk. To draw it back even further, we shouldn't have been in that region of the world in the first place. Kuwait needed help from the UN, why does the UN always send the US as 90-95% of the power? Fuck them, let them put in a little more muscle and see how willing they are to stick their noses in everyone's business.

I agree with the last line 100%! Infact, I agree with everything you have said.

For that matter, why is the UN a governmental body rather then a neutral international forum? The very idea of an "international government" is convoluted and forces either them to have practically no power, or forces everyone else to have practically no power making domestic soverignty a null concept.

And that is why we don't have a world government today.

a) it's all a lie
b) it's all a conspiracy
c) Bush had nothing to do with it
d) the Democrats would have done a better job (but they won't say how)
e) you're still lying

didn't want to disappoint whispering legs

My dad was in Bosnia, the 1st Gulf War, Kosovo, and this war too. If you want to discuss Military History, I'm sure that you and I can do so in a civilized manner. However, you are ignorant of Military History because you are saying that too many people have died. Its too many when 1 dies however when you stack up the dead to the dead of Vietnam, WWI, WWII, and Korea (all international fights), this is nothing.

In terms of American Military History, it is also nothing. We have suffered far more casualties during the Civil War than we did in WWII as well as vietnam COMBINED!!!! We also lost more soldiers in the Revolutionary War than we have in this one. Casualty figures for that war are sketchy however. I could go one but then, you would just say something insulting.

Compared to Vietnam, it is bloodless. Yes we lost 1500 but we lost 50,000+ in Vietnam. We lost 400,000 in WWII! We lost more than 400,000 during the Civil War. Compared to those numbers, yes this is bloodless.

Sir, my father is a Lt. Colonel in the United States Air Force. I know full well what kids go through when they lose a parent. I also know what my dad suffered when he lost friends during Tehran AND in the 1st Gulf War. Those kids have nothing to be ashamed of. They father, mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, even grandfather or grandmother, are American Heroes. I honor our Dead Soldiers every single solitary day. I pray for their families every night. I pray for the safe return of our soldiers every night as well. I pray for peace every night. However, I am a realist! I know what the real world is like. I know that you have to fight to maintain peace and to prevent tyrants from taking over the neighborhood.

When you look at actual numbers, and I'm talking numbers nothing more, this war isn't bloody. War is hell but this war is mostly bloodless.
Put away the slide rule. I know how to count.

Cornlieu's "Bloodless" Operation Iraqi Liberation (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) (OIL for short)

"Its too many when 1 dies however when you stack up the dead to the dead of Vietnam, WWI, WWII, and Korea (all international fights), this is nothing (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery2.htm)"

Put away the slide rule. I know how to count.

Cornlieu's "Bloodless" Operation Iraqi Liberation (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) (OIL for short)

"Its too many when 1 dies however when you stack up the dead to the dead of Vietnam, WWI, WWII, and Korea (all international fights), this is nothing (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery2.htm)"

And for the last time, it is OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Bush's policies are starting to work wether you like it or not. I suggest you study casualty numbers more and stack up this war with them. Studying military history is more than studying military campaigns. Anyone with a brain can do that but it takes alot more research to see how many people have died in a particular battle during that campaign. BTW: More people have died in the Battle of the Bulge than in Iraq.