Liberals, Iraq, Afghanistan, and causes.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-10-19 08:23pm

Okay, a question.

After 9/11 America focused its military strength on Afghanistan. The Taliban was there and so was Osama bin-Laden and the Al-Quaeda network. I distinctly remember at the time that many, many voices on the left wing condemned the military actions against Afghanistan-- it was "bombing the poorest country in the world" and "making illiterate peasants suffer in the name of revenge". It was going to be a "quagmire" and we were reminded of the follies of the British and Soviet actions there.

But now, since Iraq, the Left Wing has been criticizing the action there, while decrying the lack of focus on Afghanistan! We are now told by the Left that we have "lost focus" and "what about Osama" and "where is the money for Afghanistan" and "why do we ignore the Taliban's efforts to regroup".

Now in truth I support these arguments. We have lost focus on Afghanistan, and I agree that unless we want to see a new Taliban or some other warlord we'd be well advised to help settle things there.

But as far as most liberal pundits go, why is yesterday's foolish quagmire suddenly today's righteous cause? Is it truly a change in heart or perspective, or is it just another way to poke GW Bush with a pointy stick? The people who once argued against any dealings with Afghanistran are now focusing on it 'like a laser' to use an old cliche.

Why the change of heart?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 08:31pm

Hell, they thought we were in there to build an oil pipeline. Probably still do.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-19 08:40pm

Once we're in, we have to finish the job, else we'll be even worse off than before.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 08:40pm

We all know that wanting to not leave things unfinished is an evil Left idea, to corrupt the glorious Right Wing.

I find it fairly simple. If you're going to go smash the leadership of a country, you should at least rebuild it, conquest or not. I understand how not supporting everything in lock-step might confuse people into thinking it's hypocrisy, though.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-19 08:51pm

SirNitram wrote:We all know that wanting to not leave things unfinished is an evil Left idea, to corrupt the glorious Right Wing.

I for one wouldn't make that claim. However, what the fuck was up with the partisian vote for rebuilding Iraq? Democrats, except for four brave souls who crossed party lines, voted to saddle the current administration with 10 billion in debt? That's the change I find disturbing. Opposing a war and supporting rebuilding I can easily understand. If you want to punish Bush, find a better way, sheesh.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 08:53pm

aronkerkhof wrote:
SirNitram wrote:We all know that wanting to not leave things unfinished is an evil Left idea, to corrupt the glorious Right Wing.
I for one wouldn't make that claim. However, what the fuck was up with the partisian vote for rebuilding Iraq? Democrats, except for four brave souls who crossed party lines, voted to saddle the current administration with 10 billion in debt? That's the change I find disturbing. Opposing a war and supporting rebuilding I can easily understand. If you want to punish Bush, find a better way, sheesh.

How would this debt be saddled on the current administration? I admit to knowing little about the voting. If we're talking about the whole 'We should remove Bush's tax cut to pay for it' thing, I frankly agree, the rich can pay just like the firefighter down the street.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-19 09:08pm

SirNitram wrote: How would this debt be saddled on the current administration? I admit to knowing little about the voting. If we're talking about the whole 'We should remove Bush's tax cut to pay for it' thing, I frankly agree, the rich can pay just like the firefighter down the street.

The vote was either to give the 20 billion currently on the block to Iraq as a grant, or give $10B of it as a loan, which would be forgiven if other nations forgave some percentage of Saddam-era loans. Translation: the debt would probably never be forgiven.

I find it amoral to force the people of Iraq to pay for their own reconstruction, regardless of what other countries do about loans made to Iraq under Hussein. I'd entertain other reasons for voting for this (last minute tacked on) measure except scoring political points against the republicans, but I can't think of any right now.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-19 09:19pm

I thought that forcing the people of Iraq to pay for their own reconstruction was the gameplan all along, with the whole Bush administration "Iraqi oil will pay for Iraq's reconstruction" argument.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-19 09:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:I thought that forcing the people of Iraq to pay for their own reconstruction was the gameplan all along, with the whole Bush administration "Iraqi oil will pay for Iraq's reconstruction" argument.

Was it? I don't think Bush & Co. had a coherant post-war policy. However, I remember before the war seeing that even if every penny from Iraq was spent repaying war debts that it would take 10 years to repay it, even assuming no post-invasion hiccups. I never thought much of that line of thought, and I'm still not seeing where the democrats are coming from on this one.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 09:38pm

I don't think anyone was trying to claim that oil would cover the whole bill. Just part of it.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-19 09:57pm

I don't think the civilian leadership had any real plans for the reconstruction of Iraq. They were just salivating at the mouth thinking how our military would run over the Iraqi defenders like speed bumps.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:15pm

Of course they had a plan: They would be welcomed as liberators, find the WMDs, and build a new 1st world nation on Iraqi oil money.

Like it or not, the American people were repeatedly told that the Iraqi oil would pay for this, not American money. It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-19 10:22pm

SirNitram wrote:It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.

Politicians don't really care. They don't pay for the war out of their own pocket, it's the tax payers that pay for the war.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:23pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
SirNitram wrote:It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.
Politicians don't really care. They don't pay for the war out of their own pocket, it's the tax payers that pay for the war.

I'm sure there's at least one guy in the US government who has some morality left. He might be the intern who everyone dumps work on, but he'll be there!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 10:31pm

Of course they had a plan: They would be welcomed as liberators, find the WMDs, and build a new 1st world nation on Iraqi oil money. Like it or not, the American people were repeatedly told that the Iraqi oil would pay for this, not American money. It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.

Nope, sorry, that's bullshit. At no point did the Bush administration claim that oil was going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:33pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Of course they had a plan: They would be welcomed as liberators, find the WMDs, and build a new 1st world nation on Iraqi oil money. Like it or not, the American people were repeatedly told that the Iraqi oil would pay for this, not American money. It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.
Nope, sorry, that's bullshit. At no point did the Bush administration claim that oil was going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Not what was reported here in Charleston. Of course, that's all communist lies, ain't it?

If the Bush Administration didn't intend that, maybe they should have told the media, because that's what myself and a number of others thought was going down.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-19 10:33pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Of course they had a plan: They would be welcomed as liberators, find the WMDs, and build a new 1st world nation on Iraqi oil money. Like it or not, the American people were repeatedly told that the Iraqi oil would pay for this, not American money. It should come as no surprise the government is actually playing by that, even if Bush hates it.
Nope, sorry, that's bullshit. At no point did the Bush administration claim that oil was going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq.

So they admitted that there would be open-ended billing for tens of billions of dollars at a time before the war? I don't recall that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 10:38pm

Not what was reported here in Charleston. Of course, that's all communist lies, ain't it? If the Bush Administration didn't intend that, maybe they should have told the media, because that's what myself and a number of others thought was going down.

Using oil money to finance the reconstruction of Iraq was an idea thrown out in September 2002. Granted, they may have suggested using SOME oil revenue to help out a bit, but at no point was did the government claim that Iraqi oil was going to pay for the bulk, or even a very significant minority, of the reconstruction.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:42pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Not what was reported here in Charleston. Of course, that's all communist lies, ain't it? If the Bush Administration didn't intend that, maybe they should have told the media, because that's what myself and a number of others thought was going down.
Using oil money to finance the reconstruction of Iraq was an idea thrown out in September 2002. Granted, they may have suggested using SOME oil revenue to help out a bit, but at no point was did the government claim that Iraqi oil was going to pay for the bulk, or even a very significant minority, of the reconstruction.

In the same way they did not claim Saddam was linked to 9/11.. it just cropped up enough for people to assume it was so.

To be totally frank, I don't see why it shouldn't be at least partially funded for by Iraq oil. Of course, I'm assuming the Bush administration is talking about tooling up the nation to 1st world levels; if they're just going to restore it to what it was and leave, the dickless wonders should pay for it for the cost of a single new carrier.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-19 10:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:I thought that forcing the people of Iraq to pay for their own reconstruction was the gameplan all along, with the whole Bush administration "Iraqi oil will pay for Iraq's reconstruction" argument.

Iraq needs hundreds of billions of dollars of work over a timeframe of at least a decade.. That check for 20 billion in whatever form it comes doesn't represent the US simply paying for everything, far far from it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:49pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I thought that forcing the people of Iraq to pay for their own reconstruction was the gameplan all along, with the whole Bush administration "Iraqi oil will pay for Iraq's reconstruction" argument.
Iraq needs hundreds of billions of dollars of work over a timeframe of at least a decade.. That check for 20 billion in whatever form it comes doesn't represent the US simply paying for everything, far far from it.

It doesn't represent the US paying for it all now, no. I once again point out there's been no timetable released to the public, so I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back asking for more next year. 20B a year for a decade is around 200B, in the general range you suggest is needed. Of course, American allies will contribute.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 10:50pm

To be totally frank, I don't see why it shouldn't be at least partially funded for by Iraq oil. Of course, I'm assuming the Bush administration is talking about tooling up the nation to 1st world levels; if they're just going to restore it to what it was and leave, the dickless wonders should pay for it for the cost of a single new carrier.

I think it should, also, but it doesn't look like this is going to be so. They were too optimistic with their estimates.

And let me correct myself; I shouldn't have said "significant minority," because I just remembered that they most certainly were claiming that a significant minority of the reconstruction costs would be paid for by oil. But still not the entire reconstruction, never.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-10-19 10:55pm

Well, what I have seen in the news is that the Iraqi oil will both stabilize world oil prices and also underwrite a great deal of the reconstruction.

But things that I have difficulty understanding-- the whole idea of "regime change" for Iraq came from the previous administration of Democrat Bill Clinton, who also oversaw "regime change" in Yugoslavia. Former President Clinton also oversaw most of the years of "no flight zones" and embargoes on Iraq, and ordered a major attack on Iraq for non-compliance with UN regulations.

In Afghanistan, the calls for action by human rights groups were many (and justified). The Taliban executed women and others (gays, 'heretics', etc) with impunity and destroyed ancient artifacts, and a host of other crimes. Yet when action came against the various enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people who had either called for action or supported it were suddenly critical. Was it merely because of the political leanings of the sitting President (ie, GW Bush)?

It has been pointed out mny times that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian ntionals. Would the left wing actually support an attack on Saudi Arabia more than the attack on Iraq, had things gone a bit differently?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-19 10:55pm

SirNitram wrote:It doesn't represent the US paying for it all now, no. I once again point out there's been no timetable released to the public, so I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back asking for more next year. 20B a year for a decade is around 200B, in the general range you suggest is needed. Of course, American allies will contribute.

We will? Not to sound cynical, but why would American allies contribute generously to this rebuilding effort when the Bush Administration retains control over the area and decides where the reconstruction contracts will go (ie- American companies)?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 10:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:
To be totally frank, I don't see why it shouldn't be at least partially funded for by Iraq oil. Of course, I'm assuming the Bush administration is talking about tooling up the nation to 1st world levels; if they're just going to restore it to what it was and leave, the dickless wonders should pay for it for the cost of a single new carrier.
I think it should, also, but it doesn't look like this is going to be so. They were too optimistic with their estimates.

And let me correct myself; I shouldn't have said "significant minority," because I just remembered that they most certainly were claiming that a significant minority of the reconstruction costs would be paid for by oil. But still not the entire reconstruction, never.

Your concession is accepted; the idea it's gonna pay for all of it is mostly just a myth among the drones, but neither are the democrats this came from claiming it should pay for the whole thing, just that we give half as a gift, half as a loan.