1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Will there be a Peace Dividend?

Discussion in 'Archive' started by James_F, Mar 27, 2003.

  1. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    OK, what is the peace dividend after this war?

    Lower gas prices? Don't think so since they were about as low as they could go about a year ago.

    New markets? OK you have a country that is decimated and needs to be rebuilt. But it could take years for the citizens to gain the kind of money that is required to buy American goods. China might have more to gain from this war than our manufacturers. And what about the loss of every other Arab and Muslim market? Don't think McDonalds will be building any more restaurants nor will Dell be showing commercials in Egypt.

    Security? OK so now we have EVERY Muslim wanting our blood. Sure Saddam is now out of our hair, but he was surrounded. Now we have 20-30 nations that have terrorist organizations that are out to get us.

    Improved economy? Sure defense spending will help, but for every Apache Boeing builds, they lose 2-3 commercial aircraft sales. GE and other defense contractors will see orders, but what about other manufactures? No one is buying anything right now because they are glued to their TVs seeing the war seem to take more time and cost more lives than they were expecting.
     
  2. Neil Derryberry

    Neil Derryberry Hall Of Fame

    2,014
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    James, you've got every right to your opinion, and don't get me wrong, we are a better board because you are here, but you seem awful bitter, man! What gives?
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Perhaps he is bitter because there is no "upside" to this war, and we are in fact worse off from the terrorist standpoint than we were a week ago.
     
  4. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    Of course... billions in contracts for Halliburton and Cheney while Bush, Bush Sr., Baker and the Bin Ladens make billions by using up the weapons.
     
  5. Mike123abc

    Mike123abc Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,818
    0
    Jul 19, 2002
    Cheney does not own any Halliburton stock any more. But, I am sure that the fact that he used to be with the company helped them to get the contract to get the oil fields back online. But, I would challenge you to name a company in the US that is better than Hal at what they do, they are very specialized.

    It will be years before we know if we lowered or raised the terrorist threat. All the statements either way are just conjecture. Bush believes getting rid of Saddam will reduce terrorism. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has some intelligence reports that make him believe it.

    Countries will however think twice about sponsoring terrorists. They now know as long as Bush is in the White house they will pay with the loss of their country. If we get Iraq pumping full blast Saudi oil will look less important... I am sure the Saudis will work hard to crack down in their country.
     
  6. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    You are confusing bitter with realistic. Why are we in Iraq?
     
  7. James_F

    James_F Damn you woman! DBSTalk Gold Club

    5,205
    1
    Apr 23, 2002
    I hope you are correct. Its just hard to kill a fly with a cannon.
    I think you are partly correct. Nations such as Yemen might think twice, but Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia don't have any control over their territory and cannot stop terrorism even if they wanted to.
    Except we need more oil all the time. Nigeria and Venezuela are in trouble so Iraqi oil might just offset current shortages.
     
  8. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    "Cheney does not own any Halliburton stock any more. But, I am sure that the fact that he used to be with the company helped them to get the contract to get the oil fields back online."

    They (right-wing Republicans) had this all planned since 1997. I'm not going to look up the links but there were papers in Europe that studied and came up with their plans. The links are around a week old so....

    Here is one: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
    “The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.”

    I read papers stating that Iraq is first then N. Korea, Iran, then Syria unless the plans change.

    FDR stated that nothing happens in politics by accident or something like that so every war, strike, or crisis happens because it was planned before hand. This will be hard to accept for most Americans.

    And if you don't think Cheney is not going to get anything in return then I have a bridge to sell you.
     
  9. firephoto

    firephoto Icon

    863
    0
    Sep 12, 2002
    Well we could build walls around our borders. Start with the Mexican border first (it's shorter) and then do Canada. If that doesn't seem like a good idea we could just invade them instead.

    On the topic of Halliburton, I do think they are the right ones for the job. This isn't a weekend fixit job, this is a billion dollar job that needs a HUGE company behind it.
    Big Co's make bigger profits. oh well.
     
  10. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    OK, not to be cynical, but here are the upsides.

    The cloud hanging over the stock market goes away and stocks can go up again, making capital gains and therefore, taxes available to the economy again.

    Wars use up resources and put people to work which will boost the employment numbers.

    Regardless of what the angry mob thinks, the leaders of Syria, Iran, Libya (we haven't heard much from Moammar since we bombed HIM in the 80's), may moderate their stance as they don't want to be next on the hit list.

    Hey, when Iran of all people is intercepting floating bombs that are heading for you, you know that things maybe changing after all.
     
  11. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Hey, when Iran of all people is intercepting floating bombs that are heading for you, you know that things maybe changing after all."

    But they first blamed the US as the source of that weapon!

    How things change. When I was at Commerce Dept we couldn't approve shipments of restricted material fast enough for the administration... shipping them to Iraq in spite of the fact that it was well known that Saddam had a hand in financing and training "Carlos the Jackal" and was behind his kidnapping of OPEC oil ministers.

    I'll agree that Syria may be becoming more moderate and King Hussein of Jordan set the tone for Arab moderation in that country that his son continnues to follow.

    On the other hand, we continue to buddy up to the House of Saud, one of the most repressive governments in the area, even though they may be on "our side" most of the time. Also Kuwait promised to be more democratic once we liberated them from Saddam in 1991, but they sure are very slow getting there.
     
  12. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    847
    1
    Feb 2, 2003
    We are in Iraq because a megalomaniacal buttwipe was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, over half the UN was rendering the body irrellevant by not enforcing the resolutions, and the resolutions being violated concerned promises not to deal with chemical or biological weapons or have Scuds and a host of other weapons systems.

    We are in Iraq because the moron in question thought he could get into bed with terrorists and attack other nations like Kuwait and violate every agreement they ever signed on to with total impunity.

    We are in Iraq because someone noted that prior to September 11th, the hijackers were only a potential threat and that potential threats have a nasty way of becoming realized and that maybe we should head this one off the way we should have done with Al Queda before it got to the point that it did.
     
  13. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    While I agree with you on the first two premises (although possesion of SCUDS by Iraq is not a violation), your third premise is way off base. You might as well link the buildup of nuclear potential in North Korea to the 9/11 terrorists. That is just as related (or unrelated).

    If you use a bit of critical thought, instead of a jingoistic knee-jerk repsonse about 9/11, you might see that the opposite may happen. Instead of our attack on Iraq being a deterent to domestic attacks by Al Qaeda, it may embolden them. These are people with an extreme grudge against the USA and, becauuse the world reaction is generally against the US action, especially in countries where Al Qaeda operates, they may be emboldened in theri actions. These are not rational people. They are zealots who crave attention to their cause and appropation, especially among the Moslem world.

    We will be less safe due to our attack on Iraq and further away from any cooperation with moderate Muslim/Arab countries. Think about the proof of what I say. We are now at "Orange Alert" which indicates that we are MORE vulnerable to terroist attacks, by admission of our own government. This alert is directly tied to our attack on Iraq.
     
  14. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    "although possession of Scuds is not a violation"

    Since when? That missile has an operational range of over 150 kilometers which DOES make it against they rules that THEY agreed to to end the last conflict. They were supposed to divest themselves from ALL weapons of mass destruction and this validates the corrective action we have taken. Finding thousands of chemical weapon protective gear also points that they expect chemical weapons to be used (by us? we never have used it in combat. We don't NEED to as we can bomb them back to Allah without it). Plus they are kidnapping children to force their parents to fight, hanging a woman who waved to British troops, capturing British Humanitarian aid and calling them prisoners of war, capturing 7 Italian Journalists as prisoners of war, firing anti aircraft weapons into the sky which then fall to the ground and inflict collateral damage on their own people (which they then blame on us), show videotape which they purport to be taken that day, but does not show ANY proof that this jerk is even still vertical (no more pictures of the hostages as "guests" like last time?) Jeez, I could go on forever.

    OK, peaceniks, we know that you abhor war in ANY form. That absolute moral Deontological viewpoint precludes you from going along with this action. Sometimes though, a more utilitarian world view is called for. If Hitler walked across the street in front of your house in 1942, and you could save millions of Jews and Allied soldiers with a single gunshot, would you? Whatever your answer to that hypothetical question, we are now on this path and must play it through to its conclusion. We will either succeed and real change will come to Irag and hopefully the surrounding countries, or we somehow lose and have to withdraw. This will show weakness to our enemies and invite new waves of attacks.

    I don't buy into the argument that we will have all of the muslim world rise against us. Let's plant some healthy democracy and capitalism into their midst and see what happens. Spanking this enemy will also send a message to others that would support the terrorists that ANY support of them will put them on our "to do" list.
     
  15. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Bob, I am definitely not a "peacenik" and I have a purple heart and bronze star to prove it, dammit!

    I don't "abhor war in any form, but I do not think war is the real solution to problems, only first aid when all other forms of staying alive are gone. I really believe that our president has led us down th wrong road here, one that need not have been taken at this time and one that betrays the noble purpose of our country.

    None of the posts I have read here claim anything other than Saddam Hussein is an evil man. And nowhere have I said that the entire Moslem world will rise against us, but there are enough of them who have revenge on their mind to put real peace and security in this country in jeopardy. If you haven't figured it out, we have already invited new waves of attacks from our enemies - that's why we went to Orange Alert the day we invaded. Furthermore, what you see as seeds of democracy and capitalism is seen by many as imperialism and adventurism by a lot of the world. We will surely win on the battlefield, but if we have done it with the loss of support from our traditional allies and a skepticism from the rest of the world, then we will have lost the real war.
     
  16. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Since when? That missile has an operational range of over 150 kilometers which DOES make it against they rules that THEY agreed to to end the last conflict. "

    Bob is correct on this point and I have to retract my statement.

    SCUDS, defined as the Russian missles suppiled to Iraq, ARE banned by the UN. However, the press, and even the military, have been erroneously calling the missles fired so far as "SCUDs" when in fact at least two of the three and perhaps the third are not SCUDS as defined by the UN accord.
     
  17. Rick_EE

    Rick_EE Godfather

    498
    0
    Apr 5, 2002
    The missile that hit Kuwait on Friday was a Chinese Silkworm. I don't kjnow if it was "legal" or not.
     
  18. Jacob S

    Jacob S Hall Of Fame

    7,657
    1
    Apr 14, 2002
    I think there are many fine points mentioned. Anyone that things Sadaam is not evil must not think that attacking and killing your own people and taking them hostage is not evil. It just is not right. I think we may have more against us after this war than what were before but at the same time it shows that we are not going to just sit here and let us be attacked and maybe show others what we do when someone attacks us or does not obide by the rules.

    To think Cheney is getting nothing out of the building contract is stupid, he will get a kickback out of that.
     
  19. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    For your medals, I thank you for your sacrifices that us armchair politicians and generals do not fully appreciate. I apologize if you took the word "peacenik" as a derogatory comment. I had no such intentions. It was merely a literary shortcut to label those who were against this action in Iraq, so I could get to the rest of my point. I had a brother in law on the USS Enterprise in the first Gulf War and we were worried on his behalf during the whole time.

    The difference now is that many Americans have personalized this conflict as being more about our security, and not just a detached desire to help out a less fortunate country against internal strife (a la Somalia, Kosovo, etc.). I lost a friend in the World Trade Center 18 months ago and my wife worked across the street in the American Express building 10 years ago when the first bomb went off so this one hit close to me. I also live in NJ which is in danger should the bad guys attack any nearby nuclear plants or detonate a weapon of mass destruction. Our government botched the diplomatic buildup to this campaign and I believe that we should have taken a little more time to build world opinion on our behalf. But now that we are in this, we need to finish it as quickly and decisively as we can. The terrorists WILL NOT diminish their efforts against us with or without this war. Only converting the country to an official Islamic state would do this per Bin Laden. We can then either try to play by the rules and wait for them to do something, or we can try to instill respect in the rogue states leaders (like we did with Khadaffi when we bombed HIM last time).

    It is a rotten choice, but after weighing the risks and the benefits, I believe that we owe it to the troops to show solidarity and give them our full support and pray that we are on the right path and to give war a chance (apologies to John Lennon).
     
  20. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "I apologize if you took the word "peacenik" as a derogatory comment. I had no such intentions. It was merely a literary shortcut to label those who were against this action in Iraq, so I could get to the rest of my point."

    Fair enough, you old "warmonger"! :) :) :)

    I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong, but my sense of history and limited knowledge of Middle-eastern culture tells me that terrorism and threats of terrorism will increase, not decrease as the years go by. One need only to look at Israel and Ireland to see that decades of terrorism aren't abating. (hey maybe the problem is we have too many countries begining withthe letter "I").

    The Moslem fundamentalists have little, if any connection to Iraq, but they now have made Saddam their "poster boy" for their campaigns of terror. Iraq was not more responsible for 9/11 than was Cuba or North Korea. Better targets for those responsible would have been The Sudan, Libya, and Syria. And as far as repressive regimes go, it's hard to beat the House of Saud who likes to conduct public executions in mall parking lots.

    The other main problem is that most of the world is against what we are doing, and we even alienate our traditional allies, like France and Germany, by trying to characterize them as Anti-American also. We are acting like spoiled brats who don't get our way with the world. At best we will have a lot of fence-mending to do after the fall of Baghdad.
     

Share This Page