With More Money to Spend, Middle-Class Iraqis Go Shopping (NYT forgets that Baghdad is a quagmire)

The New York Times ^ | December 9, 2003 | EDWARD WONG

[presidio9]

Actually, the only thing I'm looking for from my government is national security. Neither of these guys understands national security a bit. Neither, it appears, do you. If $87billion prevented a WMD attack in NYC sometime in the future, I understand the effect that that would have on our economy and view that as money well spent.

[presidio9]

SOrry I don't buy that. The $70 billion for our military is for our expenses to protect Iraq. As such it is an expense that Iraq should bear.

Instead of repeating to the spin coming from liberal pundits, you really ought to look at an accounting of how the money is being spent.

[FirstPrinciple]

I am the one spinning? You are the one saying how 70 billion of that money actually is not for Iraq, but for our troops to protect Iraq. Hmmm, seems like any accountant will put that expense under the Iraq column.

[presidio9]

I am the one spinning? You are the one saying how 70 billion of that money actually is not for Iraq, but for our troops to protect Iraq. Hmmm, seems like any accountant will put that expense under the Iraq column.

I hope you have enjoyed your first two weeks her at FR. You are a big fan of liberal talking points, but you don't offer any plausible alternatives. Just like Howard Dean. What "conservative" philosophy led you to oppose the war in Iraq?

[FirstPrinciple]

Damn! That will take far longer than I have time for. Maybe if we meet someday I will let you know. BTW, what makes you think I was opposed to the war. Maybe, I am opposed to the peace. In a nutshell, the best thing we can do is let the Shiites and the Sunnis do what they do best - kill each other. As long as they are killing each other, they are not killing us.

[presidio9]

Damn! That will take far longer than I have time for. Maybe if we meet someday I will let you know. BTW, what makes you think I was opposed to the war. Maybe, I am opposed to the peace. In a nutshell, the best thing we can do is let the Shiites and the Sunnis do what they do best - kill each other. As long as they are killing each other, they are not killing us.

Since you are new here, I am going to cut you some slack. I will, however be nice enough to let you know that when new people make political accusations against the current administration and then refuse to back them up, they are often seen as DU agitators. I do not think that that is the case with you. I just think that you have not thought things through. The point of our military intervention was twofold.

First, we sought to prempt Hussein from attacking us.
Second, upon removing him from power, we sought to establish a vibrant free market democracy in the Middle East as an example of alternatives to would-be terrorists.

We have succeeded in our first objective.
The second, as our President has told us repeatedly, is going to take some time. At this point, the absolute worst thing that we could do would be to "let the Shiites and the Sunnis do what they do best - kill each other." That's what we did in Afganistan. What did that get us?

[FirstPrinciple]

I disagree with the administration's goal of nation building. The goal to set up a free-market democracy in Iraq is a futile one. The best we can do is not have them kill us. We can accomplish that militarily. The welfare of Iraq should be upto the people of Iraq. We have liberated them and now it is upto them to think about what is best for them. If they choose to be our enemies, we reserve the right to go back in there again.

The goal of the US military is to fight and win wars. Their job is definitely not building schools and play-grounds. We have accomplished our military objective and now Iraqis should rebuild their country. If they choose to bicker with one another and fight, then it is their business. The principal objection here is whether we should give them 87 billion dollars. The pragmatic answer is no! First of all, if setting up a free-market democracy is the plan then starting off with a handout is the worst way to do it. Secondly, Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. They have trillions of dollars buried underneath that could produce tons of cash if they stop killing us and start working on their oilfields. If Iraqis still need money, they could have asked Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan to raise some cash that would be backed up by their oil reserve. But, no. They wanted free money. And that is where my objection is. If you want a free-market democracy, you have to do it right. Iraq should pay high interest just like every other risky venture, and let the investors profit or lose money and not the entire American public.

[presidio9]

I disagree with the administration's goal of nation building. The goal to set up a free-market democracy in Iraq is a futile one. The best we can do is not have them kill us. We can accomplish that militarily. The welfare of Iraq should be upto the people of Iraq. We have liberated them and now it is upto them to think about what is best for them. If they choose to be our enemies, we reserve the right to go back in there again.

You have abandoned the notion that any of our actions have political consequences worldwide. There is a middle ground, which is the road that we are taking.

[FirstPrinciple]

I don't see how being Iraq's "daddy" is the middle ground. We should not be in any ground other than ourselves unless we have to. The Iraqis are now free. If they want to go back to the stone age, let them do it. As long as they are not plotting anything against us, that is the best we can do. Trying to remake Iraq is a goal that is too expensive and is absolutely not worth it. Just think about this: We spent tons of money in the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Of course, culturally we are lot closer to Europe than any other place in the world. Two generations later, the countries that benefited most from the Marshall Plan hate us the most in Europe. If Europeans, with whom we are culturally, socially and economically lot close, hate us even after we rebuilt their country, what can we expect from Iraq with whom we have nothing in common.

[presidio9]

The Iraqis are now free. If they want to go back to the stone age, let them do it. As long as they are not plotting anything against us, that is the best we can do. Trying to remake Iraq is a goal that is too expensive and is absolutely not worth it. Just think about this: We spent tons of money in the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Of course, culturally we are lot closer to Europe than any other place in the world. Two generations later, the countries that benefited most from the Marshall Plan hate us the most in Europe.

Ahhh, an Isolationist. We don't get many of those around here. We tried that philosophy after WW I. Where did it get us? Europe does not hate us as much as you have been led to believe. Call it sibling rivalry. As things stand right now, 10 minutes after the last tank exits Baghdad, the Baathists will be back in power. That's not because Iraqis love the Baath party. It's because they have no reason not to be afraid.

[KantianBurke]

So very funny how they too wish to blame America for any trouble. I thought Saddam and his insurgents were doing the attacking - not the Americans. Wonder why they choose to disparage the country that sent its soldiers to die so that they could have more money, have no fear of imprisonment? Looks like a bunch of selfish think of me only people. Very, very hard to send our soldiers to protect a people that so easily disparage them. The Iraqi people better shape up - we deserve respect. No other country bothered to win their freedom for them.

Mega bump. These scumbags sure talk big now that Saddam is gone. How much longer till we can get out of that pit of a nation?

[FirstPrinciple]

I was in Berlin, Paris, Zurich and Barcelona earlier this year (from January to March). There were anti-war rallies everywhere I went. The degree of anti-Americanism is absolutely seething. Thank God, I don't look like an American otherwise I would have been eaten alive. When I was in Hamburg, an anti-war American was attacked in a bar because he was wearing a t-shirt with an American flag. I am not sure how things are otherwise, but around Feb-Mar last year, things were really bad. Zurich was the only place where most people didn't care. I saw maybe one anti-war poster, which was removed promptly by a cop/military police. I have travelled too much to be an isolationist. My version of foreign policy is akin to Washington's: Trade and be friends with everyone, permanent alliance with noone.

[ThinkDifferent]

I disagree with the administration's goal of nation building. The goal to set up a free-market democracy in Iraq is a futile one. The best we can do is not have them kill us.

The goal is not nation-building in Iraq, as such. The goal is to reform Middle Eastern culture, precisely so that they will no longer have the desire to kill us. This is an excellent detailed analysis of our mission.

I don't know enough details to have an opinion on whether the $87 billion should be a "gift" or a "loan". I do know that if it significantly raises the chances of long-term success, it would be a bargain at ten times the price.

[ServesURight]

LOL! I swear, some of you FReepers should be stand-up comedians.

[FirstPrinciple]

If the goal is to transform Middle Eastern culture, then we might as well take the hit with 87 billion and give up. Noone has been able to do that in over 1500 years. No colonial force was able to accomplish it. Not even the Crusades were able to accomplish anything. If that is the goal, we might as well start chasing a whale in the middle of an ocean.

[JoeSchem]

About 60 percent of Iraqis have no jobs

I have big questions about this number. I suspect what it means is that 'officially' 60 percent of Iraqis have no jobs. Is the occupation government handing out benefits to the unemployed? That's why the number is so high, then. Otherwise it defies all economic logic that unemployment would be that high.

[presidio9]

I am leaving for the next week. I will try to resume this thread when I get back. In the mean time please remember that the idea here is to offer an alternative. Your current alternative seems to be "We can not solve the problems in the Middle East, so let's just ignore them and hope they go away." Is that correct?

[FirstPrinciple]

That is not what I am saying. I think we should be able to go in anywhere for a pre-emptive strike. We should not be using our military for nation building. We should not have unrealistic goals that cannot be, or has never been achieved. We should not go around the world creating welfare states and give disincentives to countries for reform.

[kanawa]

Thanks for the link. It is indeed an excellent analysis.