Runsfeld Clears Things Up

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this issue as irrelevant at all. History will be the best judge of that.

You are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not is 'pedantic drivel'.

It sounds like the 'god' that you're invoking is Mars, eh?

I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reject away. History, which you evoked in your post, provides conclusive proof that the reasons stated are very good reasons to go to war, and indeed have been the basis for many if not most wars. I sense some moralistic streak in you so I already know that we will simply disagree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
History will be the best judge of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending of course on who writes the History. It is interesting that the 1848 war with Mexico, which the U.S. probably provoked, turned out to be a big gain for America. And most do not know or even care about the 'true history' of the how the war started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To beat the horse again - This is the real issue. The way the war was botched. The administration became too greed too fast. It they would have started the Iraq invasion during Bush's second term (he would have won easily because the Afghan war was more or less successful) then things may have gone more smoothly. Some more lead time to get ready, let the dust settle in the Afghan region and solidify your position and gains, would have been the wiser course to take. Then launch your propaganda campaign and get the throbbing masses all worked up for another go. Then your ratio of risk to reward would have been better, in my opinion.

But the most difficult risk/reward thing to calculate is the religion card. It’s the joker in the deck.

But enough of this, I already know you will disagree with all this so I suggest you put me on ignore and continue with your silly debate about the merits and justifications of the ‘Iraq War’.

-Zeno