cicerone imposter wrote:
If we are unable to determine the future cost of the Iraq war, it's useless to repeat what the US already paid in human life and billions. Bush has the advantage of most Americans inability to equate those costs to what we could have accomplished with another president. Almost fifty percent of Ameriacns still think Bush is doing a good job. There's no use argument with such ignorance.
I always wonder what gets into peoples heads. This whole war on terror, and the War in Iraq which is an extension of that, is not winnable. You do not declare war on a tactic - terror.
I find it funny that governments do not learn from history. The French underestimated the Vietnamese at the battle of Dien Bien Phu and lost. Not having learned from their experience, they reinacted the same idiocy in Algeria and lost. The Russians similarly went into Afghanistan underestimating them and lost. Now the U.S. went into Vietnam in a similar way underestimated the people. Now it is in a similar position. In all these cases the assumption that a reliance on powerful weapons and technology is enough to guarantee victory.
As Fred Reed so aptly stated about what the price is for Iraq:
"A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don't count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America's influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?"