I thought this Doonesbury cartoon had an interesting point:
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db070513
In case I posted the link incorrectly, the gist of it is that for what we spend on the Iraq war in a DAY we could make microloans that would save 3 million from poverty.
It's a major oversimplification based on Muhammed Yunus's idea that by giving impoverished women loans/credit of as little as $100, they can become self sustaining entrepeneurs and lift their families out of poverty.
I know that I am very frustrated by the amount of money being spent/wasted in Iraq and wanted to start a discussion of approaching the situation from more of a humanitarian/relief direction as opposed to a solely military one.
What do you think of the idea that much of the violence is a result of frustration over living conditions, poverty, unemployment etc. and that it is hard to find support for an insurgency among people who are well fed and happy?
Replies
73
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Saddam is dead, so that's not an option!
Any constructive suggestions?
Any constructive suggestions?
Beach Fanatic
The idea is that by improving their living conditions (which we made worse when we invaded) we provide for our common defense.
Parents whose newborn babies are dying in hospitals because their incubators don't have power and whose children are starving because they lost their job at the state factory join the insurgency. Quantifiable improvements in their life make them support us. Violence is the outlet for their frustration and anger. Feed their kids, turn on the power, give them clean water and they tell Al queda to take a hike before they mess up the better life they've now got.
That's all well and good, but history shows you can't throw money at the problem. Oil for food, Hurricane Katrina, and pretty much every other assistance program of that nature have shown what corruption would ensue. We would have to maintain a military presence, which costs money, making the childish notion that you can just move money to buy air conditioners and appease the locals preposterous.
Beach Fanatic
Saddam is dead, so that's not an option!
Any constructive suggestions?
I'd say give General Petraeus more than a few months.
Beach Fanatic
I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.
6th gen, is this not your post?
Beach Fanatic
We would have to maintain a military presence, which costs money, making the childish notion that you can just move money to buy air conditioners and appease the locals preposterous.
Well for someone inclined to wail against straw men..........
This clearly isn't what he is saying. Read it again and get back to us.
Beach Fanatic
Well if we are going for honesty; by all means wrap it up in lies about WMD and jihadists.
Maybe we should be honest and consider this alternative:
A civil war which leads to a Iranian allied mullah seizing control of Iraq and creating a Shia anti-American coalition which can threaten the oil producing gulf states.
I prefer a bottled up Saddam, to that.
Who lied? Is it your assertion that Bush knew that Saddam did not have significant WMDs? How did he keep that from every other intelligence service, given the fact that you think he?s an idiot? And what lies about jihadists?
I agree with your preference on the alternative, but I don?t believe that?s the only alternative.
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Corruption involving Iraq.............that could never happen! How many BILLIONS have been "misplaced"?
The idea is not so much microloans or just throwing money at the problem, but that we need a new approach that addresses the root causes instead of just a military approach.
The idea is not so much microloans or just throwing money at the problem, but that we need a new approach that addresses the root causes instead of just a military approach.
Beach Fanatic
Who lied? Is it your assertion that Bush knew that Saddam did not have significant WMDs? How did he keep that from every other intelligence service, given the fact that you think he?s an idiot? And what lies about jihadists?
Dear Straw Man creator,
Please look at the context of what I was quoting. Rephrase your question based on the new perspective.
Beach Fanatic
Did I say that any national security issue should be dealt with militarily? I swear, I've never seen so many strawmen.
You are very selective in your responses. If you choose to have an enlightened debate, please respond and concede when you are wrong. This otherwise is a useless discussion as you are so convinced of your correctness.
What would need to occur in Iraq that would cause you to reconsider your continued support of our efforts there?
Beach Fanatic
Did I say that any national security issue should be dealt with militarily? I swear, I've never seen so many strawmen.
Corruption involving Iraq.............that could never happen! How many BILLIONS have been "misplaced"?
The idea is not so much microloans or just throwing money at the problem, but that we need a new approach that addresses the root causes instead of just a military approach.
I agree with you that new approaches are needed. A military one is useless from a standpoint of making the U.S safer. Clearly, leaving Saddam in power and controlling him rather than occupying an entire nation would have been a lot easier. There were many other incentives to invade Iraq. There are a lot of people getting rich and will continue to profit from this war.
The problem now with aiding these countries financially is that we have stirred up so much hatred that 6th gen is actually correct in stating that money would most likely be channeled to people with power ( unfortunately these are the militant groups who wish to attack us)
Beach Fanatic
Dear Straw Man creator,
Please look at the context of what I was quoting. Rephrase your question based on the new perspective.
Then tell me what you meant by this: "Well if we are going for honesty; by all means wrap it up in lies about WMD and jihadists."
Who lied?
Beach Fanatic
You are very selective in your responses. If you choose to have an enlightened debate, please respond and concede when you are wrong. This otherwise is a useless discussion as you are so convinced of your correctness.
What would need to occur in Iraq that would cause you to reconsider your continued support of our efforts there?
Why should I bother with you? You box in my argument to shape it that I'm in favor of attacking any area that can be perceived as a national security threat?
SoWal Expert
:roll: Beginning to sound like fabian/gundian/emc321. :scratch: :doh:
The discussion I was trying to get going was whether or not a campaign aimed at improving living conditions would be more effective than our current one.
Beach Fanatic
The problem now with aiding these countries financially is that we have stirred up so much hatred that 6th gen is actually correct in stating that money would most likely be channeled to people with power ( unfortunately these are the militant groups who wish to attack us)
Are you saying that, prior to the invasion, which obviously "stirred up so much hatred" money would not have been channeled to our enemies?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.