Friday, February 04, 2005
"A Giant Sucking Sound"
Cost(s) of War
It was Ross Perot, the quirky Texan two-time contender for the presidency who talked about "a giant sucking sound" in outlining the threat of NAFTA to U.S. jobs.
Regular visitors to this blog will notice the addition of a counter that displays the cost (in dollars) of our war in Iraq. Cost of War.com contains full details about the calculations and modulated examples of various programs that could benefit from the money. It is maintained by National Priorities Project, a non-partisan education and advocacy foundation.
Whether you believe that the money is being spent for a just cause or you feel that it is going down a drain to satisfy the hubris of a few, the numbers are revealing.
You don't hear a "giant sucking sound" when you look at the counter ? Well, it is your money.
Then there are other costs.
npp
The leaders who sold the war to our nation never participated in combat; not a single one of them. Some, like Vice-President Cheney, sought and received deferment during the Vietnam War. Neither do they have sons and daughters in the armed forces. Think about it.
******************
"War hath no fury like a non-combatant."
----Charles Edward Montague, British author, journalist, soldier (1867-1928)
"The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated."
----William Ellery Channing, American Unitarian Minister and Author (1780-1842)
It was Ross Perot, the quirky Texan two-time contender for the presidency who talked about "a giant sucking sound" in outlining the threat of NAFTA to U.S. jobs.
Regular visitors to this blog will notice the addition of a counter that displays the cost (in dollars) of our war in Iraq. Cost of War.com contains full details about the calculations and modulated examples of various programs that could benefit from the money. It is maintained by National Priorities Project, a non-partisan education and advocacy foundation.
Whether you believe that the money is being spent for a just cause or you feel that it is going down a drain to satisfy the hubris of a few, the numbers are revealing.
You don't hear a "giant sucking sound" when you look at the counter ? Well, it is your money.
Then there are other costs.
npp
The leaders who sold the war to our nation never participated in combat; not a single one of them. Some, like Vice-President Cheney, sought and received deferment during the Vietnam War. Neither do they have sons and daughters in the armed forces. Think about it.
"War hath no fury like a non-combatant."
----Charles Edward Montague, British author, journalist, soldier (1867-1928)
"The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated."
----William Ellery Channing, American Unitarian Minister and Author (1780-1842)
Comments:
<< Home
Hi, I read your comment on my blog just now, and thought I'd see what you were up to over here.
Looking at the "cost of war" is meaningless unless it's done in the context of the benefits we get for incurring that cost.
If our efforts to transform the Middle East, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, end up creating a region where terrorists do not plot and scheme to detonate a nuke in a major American city, then we will have saved untold billions of dollars, plus an incalculable emotional cost in lives spared.
You may not believe that the War on Terror is wise, or is working. But, in evaluating it as foreign policy, it's only fair to assess the goals it seeks to acheive, and their value.
Looking at the "cost of war" is meaningless unless it's done in the context of the benefits we get for incurring that cost.
If our efforts to transform the Middle East, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, end up creating a region where terrorists do not plot and scheme to detonate a nuke in a major American city, then we will have saved untold billions of dollars, plus an incalculable emotional cost in lives spared.
You may not believe that the War on Terror is wise, or is working. But, in evaluating it as foreign policy, it's only fair to assess the goals it seeks to acheive, and their value.
Is that what we are doing, conducting "war on terror" ?
If memory serves me right the reason for the war against Iraq has gone through a number of changes. First that Saddam had a hand in the attacks on 9/11; then the WMD angle which was milked to the last drop. The latest is that we are there to "democratize" the Iraqis. Does not look as though the recent election would result in formation of a democratic government. But let us hope for the sake of the Iraqi people, and for our soldiers out there, that the bloodshed would stop.
If one's source of news is not limited to the Fox channel, it becomes obvious that the war has created more terrorists instead of curbing their growth.
If memory serves me right the reason for the war against Iraq has gone through a number of changes. First that Saddam had a hand in the attacks on 9/11; then the WMD angle which was milked to the last drop. The latest is that we are there to "democratize" the Iraqis. Does not look as though the recent election would result in formation of a democratic government. But let us hope for the sake of the Iraqi people, and for our soldiers out there, that the bloodshed would stop.
If one's source of news is not limited to the Fox channel, it becomes obvious that the war has created more terrorists instead of curbing their growth.
It is not the case that everyone who disagrees with you watches nothing but Fox News.
I don't watch any TV news, actually.
I am curious: Why is it "obvious" to you that we have created more terrorists? Do you have some data to back up that claim, or is it just your personal belief?
I have some data, and here it is: Before the War on Terror, the U.S. was the vicitm of many, many terror attacks: our hostages in Iran, the attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut, the U.S. embassy bombings in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, the first (failed) attempt on the World Trade Center, and finally 9-11, just to name the most notable ones.
Since the war on terror, there have been no major attacks on the U.S. that I can think of (not counting attacks on our troops in Iraq, who are, after all, at war there).
It seems to me our strategy is working pretty well.
Our rationale for being in Iraq hasn't shifted; there have been multiple reasons all along.
If you are troubled by the fact that there is more than one reason for us to be in Iraq, don't be. We are doing the right thing.
Saying we are going into Iraq for this or that reason is much less important than the result of a democratically-governed Middle East.
I don't watch any TV news, actually.
I am curious: Why is it "obvious" to you that we have created more terrorists? Do you have some data to back up that claim, or is it just your personal belief?
I have some data, and here it is: Before the War on Terror, the U.S. was the vicitm of many, many terror attacks: our hostages in Iran, the attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut, the U.S. embassy bombings in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, the first (failed) attempt on the World Trade Center, and finally 9-11, just to name the most notable ones.
Since the war on terror, there have been no major attacks on the U.S. that I can think of (not counting attacks on our troops in Iraq, who are, after all, at war there).
It seems to me our strategy is working pretty well.
Our rationale for being in Iraq hasn't shifted; there have been multiple reasons all along.
If you are troubled by the fact that there is more than one reason for us to be in Iraq, don't be. We are doing the right thing.
Saying we are going into Iraq for this or that reason is much less important than the result of a democratically-governed Middle East.
“Democratically governed Middle-East” is a worthy goal. In the recently held elections about 50% of Iraqis (mostly Sunnis) stayed away. Facts: Iyad Allawi was on the CIA’s payroll, as was Ahmed Chalabi who, after falling from grace, is making a come back. And then there is Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the Shia leader, calling the shots from behind. So I’m skeptical about the “democratic government” that would emerge. It would seem that we want to see democracy established only when we are assured of a government that works at our bidding. Look at our ally Pakistan. Would you say that Pakistan under General Musharraf has a "government of the people" ? Step back a little. In 1953 British and American Governments joined hands to topple Mohammed Mossadeq, the elected premier in Iran, and installed the Shah to protect oil companies from being nationalised. The records about the brutal regime of the Shah and subsequent capture of power by religious zealots in Iran are available to all who are interested in checking the facts.
Good that you don’t watch news programs. Neither do I. But I follow BBC’s reports on the Internet. Last October, an article in the respected medical journal "Lancet" mentioned that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians died since the war began. When it comes to suffering in such scale, does the end justify the means; to me it does not. You can find the item in BBC's archive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm
As to rise in terrorism, I take a global view.
The weekend is over in Tokyo. Stay well.
Post a Comment
Good that you don’t watch news programs. Neither do I. But I follow BBC’s reports on the Internet. Last October, an article in the respected medical journal "Lancet" mentioned that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians died since the war began. When it comes to suffering in such scale, does the end justify the means; to me it does not. You can find the item in BBC's archive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm
As to rise in terrorism, I take a global view.
The weekend is over in Tokyo. Stay well.
<< Home
