The Iraq / war on terror thread

[MCT]

MCT  its the first sentence for me?

Is Sky72 straight?

i really dont know...

Take note of the following (located at the bottom of my last post, to serve as a failsafe in the event of what just happened):

...no...

Anyway, good luck with life and everything.............

[SLCPUNK]

  Germany's fatal mistake was fighting a war on two fronts.

 Hmmm...sounds familiar.

We have superiority in ever area.

Yea that is what we said back in vietnam too.

[neko]

MCT  i didnt saw that , i dont know why , well good luck to you to.

[GnRNightrain]

It's frighfully obvious that you're incapable of following all but the most conspicuous of shorthanded gestures, so I shall refrain from a full-blown reply.

Perhaps you just disagree with my answers.  Your post was pretty clear, and I responded to it.  If there is a secret message in it, then I suggest you let me know.

Why did Powell step down other than the fact that he always intended to serve just one term?? Enlighten me.

That Powell not returning for a second term wasn't a suprise, is something that I think we can both agree on; but for different reasons.

You seem to have verifiable information that would show a one term tenure was the plan all along for Powell, whereas I tend toward such watchdog notions as the fallout from Powell's address to the UN in February of last year (you know, the one with the faulty intel...).

The most verifiable information I have is history.  Secretary of State's rarely stay two terms.  So my presumption is that his exit is consistent with history in regards to past secretary of states, your presumption is that he was pushed out cause of his faulty intelligence.  Who knows, you could be right.

I think I was fooling myself when I first responded..........

Fooling yourself in what sense?  That you could actually have a discussion on this stuff instead of trying to use big words and telling people that they dont understand your posts?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be an asshole. Just telling it like I see it. Like you do I suppose....

Not trying to be an asshole by saying that you cant have conversations about this stuff with people?  OK.

And one more thing - kudos for always giving it a real effort. I mean that......... .......

You too.  Thank you so much for the little try and attempt to conversate with me.  I really appreciate it.

[MCT]

It's frighfully obvious that you're incapable of following all but the most conspicuous of shorthanded gestures, so I shall refrain from a full-blown reply.

Perhaps you just disagree with my answers.? Your post was pretty clear, and I responded to it.? If there is a secret message in it, then I suggest you let me know.

Case in point...........................

Why did Powell step down other than the fact that he always intended to serve just one term?? Enlighten me.

That Powell not returning for a second term wasn't a suprise, is something that I think we can both agree on; but for different reasons.

You seem to have verifiable information that would show a one term tenure was the plan all along for Powell, whereas I tend toward such watchdog notions as the fallout from Powell's address to the UN in February of last year (you know, the one with the faulty intel...).

The most verifiable information I have is history.? Secretary of State's rarely stay two terms.? So my presumption is that his exit is consistent with history in regards to past secretary of states, your presumption is that he was pushed out cause of his faulty intelligence.? Who knows, you could be right.

Case in point/banal backpedaling..........................

I think I was fooling myself when I first responded..........

Fooling yourself in what sense?? That you could actually have a discussion on this stuff

... ...

instead of trying to use big words and telling people that they dont understand your posts?

Case in point/complete balderdash (how's that for a big word?)

Now, let's forget that I even posted in the first place, ok?

And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to be an asshole................

[MCT]

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_iraq_battles.html

For more than 4500 years many peoples have fought for dominance in what is now modern day Iraq (Mesopotamia). Though it is the United States and its "coalition of the willing" that now militarily occupies the country, the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and British have all buried their dead -- not to mention the indigenous peoples, too -- in this land.
Iraq rests in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and the surrounding plain, lying at the heart of the fabled "Fertile Crescent." Much fought-over, its last native-born rulers before the 20th century were Nebuchadnezzar II and his descendants, who fell to Cyrus the Persian in 539 BC.

From the earliest times, the struggles for the region have often been dictated by the need for natural resources. Here are some key battles from the violent history of Iraq.

(10) 2525 BC - Battle between Lagash and Umma

By 3000 BC, the Sumerians had developed into the earliest civilization of Mesopotamia. The societies were organized into city-states, which warred constantly over the control of water. Two of these, Lagash and Umma, sat 18 miles apart and feuded for generations over the fertile region known as Gu'edena. In 2525, King Eannatum of Lagash defeated Umma using armored soldiers in phalanx formations, and also chariots pulled by onagers (wild asses), an invention frequently credited to the Sumerians. How do we know of this battle? It was recorded by the king on a stone monument, "the Stele of the Vultures."

(9) Around 2300 BC - Military campaigns of Sargon the Great

Sargon of Akkad may have been the world's first empire-builder. Legend states that he was found floating in a basket and brought up by a gardener. Later it is known he became a cupbearer to King Ur-Zazaba of Kish in Sumer. Sargon rose from obscurity to overthrow Lugalzaggisi of Uruk, famously forcing the defeated ruler into a yoke and leading him to the gate of Enlil, a god, at Nippur. Sargon also attacked 34 Sumerian cities. In the process, he tore down the walls of the vanquished, imprisoned 50 ensis (city-state rulers), and "cleaned his weapons in the sea" (Persian Gulf). Thus the Akkadian empire rose and the Mesopotamian military tradition was born.

8. Around 1263 BC - Assyrian King Shalmaneser I defeated Shattuara II of Hanigalbat

Assyria developed around the city of Ashur on the upper Tigris, weaker than other states appearing after Hammurabi's dynasty, including the Kassites and the Hurrians/Mitanni. Assyria was long ruled by the Mitanni, but regained autonomy during the Middle Assyrian Empire. In his second year of rule, Shalmaneser I attacked the breakaway state of Uruatru in southern Armenia. Shattuara II of Hanigalbat, leading the rebellion with the aid of the Hittites, blockaded the mountain passes and waterholes. With a desperation born of thirst, the Assyrians pounded the Mitanni kingdom into submission. Afterwards, Shalmaneser claimed to have blinded 14,400 men, a nasty bit of psychological warfare. His inscriptions mention the utter devastation of nine fortified temples, 180 Hurrian cities, and the Hittite and Ahlamu armies. Obviously, the Assyrians were not well-liked.

(7) 331 BC - Battle of Gaugamela

In 334 BC, Alexander III ("The Great") crossed the Hellespont (Dardanelles) with 7000 cavalrymen and over 30,000 infantrymen. During this expedition, Alexander defeated the king, Darius III, at the Battle of Issus. Darius retreated to the Plain of Gaugamela, near Arbela (Irbil). There he massed a enormous army and ordered the plain cleared for his scythed chariots and war elephants. Darius' army stood in a massive line. Alexander's outnumbered Macedonian forces attempted to draw the Persians away from the prepared ground. In countering, the Persian cavalry opened gaps in their own line, into which Alexander led his personal cavalry. The Persian chariots charged the Macedonians, which yielded and then decimated their drivers with projectiles. Alexander's elite cavalry turned and attacked from the rear. When Darius saw his troops in disarray, he fled, prompting a full retreat. Alexander had ended the Persian empire founded by Cyrus II.

(6) 53 BC - Battle of Carrhae

Marcus Licinius Crassus became governor of Syria in 55 BC. A triumvir with Pompey and Julius Caesar, he sought to increase his reputation by invading Parthian Mesopotamia. With seven legions, about 44,000 men, he crossed the Euphrates. However, he strayed from the river into the open desert. Near Carrhae (Harran), the Parthians approached with 10,000 mounted archers. The Romans held a theoretical advantage, but lacked desert warfare experience (fighting at midday in June?), and staggered before the Parthian arrows, fired from compound bows. Also, the Parthian commander, General Suren, had thoughtfully brought 1000 camels to re-supply his archers with arrows. Surrounding the Romans, the Parthians turned the battle into dusty target practice. Only 10,000 Gauls were reported to survive. In attempting to surrender, Crassus was killed. Roman prestige plunged in the east.

(5) 637 AD - Battle of Al-Qadisiyah

The Persian Sasanians ruled Mesopotamia from 224 AD. They thrived for centuries, but eventually became distracted by fighting the Romans and amongst themselves. Ultimately, an unlikely outside force would topple them. The Arabs had been tribesmen, unorganized and militarily primitive. The new religion of Islam, founded by Muhammad, united the tribes. In 634, the Arab campaign against the Sassanians began. 18,000 Arab tribesmen, led by General Khalid ibn al Walid ("The Sword of Islam") reached the Euphrates delta and began battling the Iranians (Persians), who were rallied by their hero, Rustam. A decisive battle occurred at Al-Qidisiyah, a village south of Baghdad. Though outnumbered six to one, the Arabs defeated the Iranians, exhausted by many battles against the Byzantines. Rustam was killed. The Arabs shortly captured the Sassanid capital at Ctesiphon, ending their dynasty and introducing Islam to the region.

(4) 1258 AD - Mongols besiege Baghdad

Mesopotamia had become known as "Iraq," the center of a large Muslim caliphate. The Abbasid ruling family established a new capital at Baghdad, which prospered. Early in the 13th Century AD, the Mongol leader, Temujin, organized the Mongol tribes into a marauding army over 700,000 strong, and began conquests of China, Persia, and Eastern Europe. He renamed himself Chinggis (Genghis) Khan ("World Conquerer"). A generation later, his grandson, Hulagu, was dispatched to capture the remainder of southwest Asia. In 1258, Hulagu besieged Baghdad, then sacked most of it, slaughtering as many as 800,000 of the inhabitants. He killed the scholars, erecting a pyramid of their skulls, and executed the caliph, al-Musta'sim, the 37th and final Abbisid ruler of a line that had lasted 500 years. Iraq was reduced to tribal culture, never to regain world prominence.

[MCT]

(3) 1534 AD - Capture of Baghdad by Suleyman the Magnificent

In the early 1500's, the Ottomans began their rise to power as the next great Islamic state. The first ruler was Sultan Selim I ("The Grim"). His victory in 1514 at the Battle of Chaldiran over the Safavids of Iran paved the way for Ottoman expansion into northern Iraq, as the Safavids had conquered Iraq in 1509. Son of Selim, Suleyman I ("the Magnificent") succeeded to the throne in 1520, and by 1522 turned his attention to the Safavids, first negotiating a truce with Archduke Ferdinand of Hungary, leaving himself free to wage the first of three major campaigns against Persia. In 1534, he took the cities of Baghdad and most of Iraq from the Persians, an enormous success, leading to almost four centuries of Ottoman rule in Iraq.

(2) 1915 AD - Siege of Kut-al-Amara

In World War I, England realized it must protect its Iraqi oil production interests against the German-Turkish alliance. In 1914, British forces began the Mesopotamian campaign at Al Faw. After several easy victories, an attempt on Baghdad was launched. However, the Anglo-Indian forces, commanded by Sir Charles Townshend, were undermanned and their supplies overstretched. In November, 1915, the British approached the ruins of Ctesiphon, on the Tigris 20 miles SE of modern Baghdad. The Turks, under Nur-ud-Din, had positioned about 18,000 experienced men in two trenches on either side of the river. The better-prepared Turks fended off the British, who dragged themselves back to occupied Kut-al-Amara. The Turks besieged the city for 143 days, ultimately forcing a British surrender. 10,000 men went into brutal captivity. The following year, the British finally took Baghdad, but the Siege of Kut-al-Amara was the army's greatest military defeat.

(1) 2003 AD - Operation Iraqi Freedom

Saddam Hussein's presidency of Iraq included a failed invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that precipitated the Persian Gulf War. Following the war, US officials suspected Iraq of cease-fire violations, including the production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In dealing with United Nation arms inspectors, Hussein proved intractable for more than 12 years. On March 20, 2003, a combined military force consisting of 300,000 primarily US and British troops entered Iraq through Kuwait. The reported pretext for the invasion was to locate and destroy chemical, nuclear, and biological WMDs, and depose Hussein. To date, no WMDs have been found. Baghdad fell on April 9. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1, however, coalition forces remain to stabilize the country, experiencing frequent insurgent attacks. On December 13, Hussein was captured near his home town of Tikrit. Coalition fighters continue to encounter fierce resistance. By December 1, 2004, 1255 American soldiers had died in Iraq with the civilian casualties estimated at about 16,800.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3740-2005Jan12.html

i dunno if it has been posted. but  it's over, they won't find any WMD. 

[jgfnsr]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3740-2005Jan12.html

i dunno if it has been posted. but? it's over, they won't find any WMD.?

If it were up to me, we'd be knocking on Syria's door next.?

They might have an idea about the whereabouts of those slippery WMD's.? And if not, well, we kick one more terrorist-state's ass.?

(See?  I can post a cheesy-ass smilie too...)

[SLCPUNK]

There were no WMD.

Never were.

Nothing slippery about something that never existed in the first place.

Care to explain how we have 'kicked ass' over there so far? It's a huge mess, everybody is admiting this now. The insurgents (read: the terrorists who came over to Iraq, because it was NOT a terrorist state pre-war) are promising to murder people who are trying to vote, and the people who run the elections. The promise huge waves of violence.

In the meantime we have only allowed people that WE APPROVE OF to run for office. So how is this anything more than a puppet government and an instrument for the USA smack dab in the middle east? This is no true democracy.

If anything we've had our ass kicked, 1300 plus dead, 20,000 wounded and an astronomical deficit we can hand to our grandchildren.

If it were up to you, you'd what? Have 1300 more of our kids killed in Syria, rack up some more debt, and find jack shit? Then announce those 'slippery' weapons slide right over to Iran?

Is that how you would 'kick ass' over there?

[SLCPUNK]

[jgfnsr]

There were no WMD.

Never were.

Nothing slippery about something that never existed in the first place.

Care to explain how we have 'kicked ass' over there so far? It's a huge mess, everybody is admiting this now. The insurgents (read: the terrorists who came over to Iraq, because it was NOT a terrorist state pre-war) are promising to murder people who are trying to vote, and the people who run the elections. The promise huge waves of violence.

In the meantime we have only allowed people that WE APPROVE OF to run for office. So how is this anything more than a puppet government and an instrument for the USA smack dab in the middle east? This is no true democracy.

If anything we've had our ass kicked, 1300 plus dead, 20,000 wounded and an astronomical deficit we can hand to our grandchildren.

If it were up to you, you'd what? Have 1300 more of our kids killed in Syria, rack up some more debt, and find jack shit? Then announce those 'slippery' weapons slide right over to Iran?

Is that how you would 'kick ass' over there?

As I've said before, if you hate Bush, you'd loath me if I were in office.

The situation the U.S. is in over there is due, in no small part, to having to fight with one hand tied behind it's back.? People, including yourself, cry that we are careless about the citizen casualties.? If anything, I think we care too much.? Between the lives of our soldiers and anyone else, well, there's no contest.

Remember what happened in Somalia when our Rangers were killed and dragged through the streets?? I thought our response to that, what there was anyway, was faaaar to kind.? Make no mistake, unlike that wuss Clinton, if it had been me other nations would seriously think twice before they'd even touch one of our soldiers.? The price they would pay would simply be too high.? The same goes for the current situation in Iraq or, for that matter, Syria and anywhere else.

When it is not crippled by political bullshit, the United States military is pretty much unstoppable.? We could have the Iraqi problem all but solved right now.? Yes, it would cost more Iraqi citizen lives in the short-term, but it would end the conflict in the long run.? In my opinion, we need to start running our military like Israel does.? No bullshit whatsoever.? Kick ass and take names.? End of fucking story.

Naturally I fully realize this approach would only increase your complaining...

(By the way, the little cartoon above really doesn't help your case SLCPUNK.  If anything, it simply demonstrates your continued descent down...down...down the radical-left slide.)

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Thedude, the thing is that it's more a shame to be on the radical right side than on the left.
i'd rather be a communist than an extreme conservative.
but anyway. facts say all. bush and co were wrong. it is just that we're not in a movie, and the americans admin. sometimes think so....

[SLCPUNK]

The situation the U.S. is in over there is due, in no small part, to having to fight with one hand tied behind it's back.  People, including yourself, cry that we are careless about the citizen casualties.  If anything, I think we care too much.  Between the lives of our soldiers and anyone else, well, there's no contest.

So you think it is worth it to waste innocent civilians so your chimp can find NOTHING? Just wanna be clear on that.

You put the spin on "support our soldiers". That is a propaganda technique. 1) Change the subject and 2) State something that nobody would disagree with.

Most important this has no point. You are not responding to my post, but rather spitting out info like a computer program might. I give you facts and you spit out "Our toops are the most important, and there is no contest". = Propaganda speak.

Remember what happened in Somalia when our Rangers were killed and dragged through the streets?  I thought our response to that, what there was anyway, was faaaar to kind.  Make no mistake, unlike that wuss Clinton, if it had been me other nations would seriously think twice before they'd even touch one of our soldiers.  The price they would pay would simply be too high.  The same goes for the current situation in Iraq or, for that matter, Syria and anywhere else.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about? What does this have to do with my post you are replying to? Just wanna talk about our how bad ass we are? 

When it is not crippled by political bullshit, the United States military is pretty much unstoppable.

Wow, we are so unstoppable! Go AMERIKA!!!! USA USA USA!!!!

Obviously we ARE stoppable right now. We are getting stopped all over the place right now, in case you haven't read a paper in a while, which I would find easy to believe.

We could have the Iraqi problem all but solved right now.

Why haven't we? I thought we were "unstoppable"?

Yes, it would cost more Iraqi citizen lives in the short-term, but it would end the conflict in the long run.  In my opinion, we need to start running our military like Israel does. 

You are a wimp. Straight up. Avoid my post like the plague and spit out this 80's Rambo bullshit.

No bullshit whatsoever.  Kick ass and take names.  End of fucking story.

(stupid)

Naturally I fully realize this approach would only increase your complaining...

If complaining equals me calling Bush and his blind followers out on their bullshit, then yes I am a fucking complainer. I am a patriot, straight up, and this country can do better. "Complainers" such as myself change things, while followers like yourself go right off the cliff, and in this case take a great country with it.

(By the way, the little cartoon above really doesn't help your case SLCPUNK.  If anything, it simply demonstrates your continued descent down...down...down the radical-left slide.)

You aren't able to respond to anything I write. All you can do is personally attack me and tell me how much our military kicks ass. Looks like you sit in your room playing too many video games.

Bush endorses a logo for his faith based initiatives program.

Bush kills thousands of innocent people for monetary gain. Only supporting the people who made him president with these actions.

Bush tricks 50% of americans into believing he has their best interests at heart.

Enough for me.

You still haven't taken my post on. You quote it and reply....to something else.

Way to go.

[GnRNightrain]

So you think it is worth it to waste innocent civilians so your chimp can find NOTHING? Just wanna be clear on that.

Most evidence showed that the weapons were there.  You know it is not as simple as you always portray it to be.

Obviously we ARE stoppable right now. We are getting stopped all over the place right now, in case you haven't read a paper in a while, which I would find easy to believe.

And our biggest opponent in the war are people like you that want failure at all costs to prove that Bush is evil and that you were right.

If complaining equals me calling Bush and his blind followers out on their bullshit, then yes I am a fucking complainer. I am a patriot, straight up, and this country can do better.

A patriot that puts as his signature that we should help our troops go to Canada.  A patriot who I have never read one positive post about america from.  That is an interesting definition of a patriot. 

"Complainers" such as myself change things, while followers like yourself go right off the cliff, and in this case take a great country with it.

People that challenge can change things.  People like you do not because you are unwilling to give anything in a debate and your agenda is for Bush to look bad and for the US to fail in Iraq.  You are just as bad as those that you seek to criticize.

Bush kills thousands of innocent people for monetary gain. Only supporting the people who made him president with these actions.

This quote says enough.

Bush tricks 50% of americans into believing he has their best interests at heart.

THis is where SLC goes into his I know better than everyone else.  Everyone is being fooled but I know the truth.  Continue to enlighten us SLC . . .

[GnRNightrain]

Here are two interesting posts I found by people far more intelligent than I on preventive war.  I found it interesting.

Preventive War - Becker
Combating crime mainly relies on deterrence through punishment of criminals who recognize that there is a chance of being apprehended and convicted-the chances are greater for more serious crimes. If convicted, they can expect imprisonment or other punishments- again, punishments are generally more severe for more serious crimes. Apprehension and punishment reduce the gain from crimes; in this way, it deters others from criminal activities.

Individuals can also be punished simply for planning or intending to commit crimes. The evidence required to punish intent has to be convincing, but the standard is weaker for violent crimes, like plotting murder, since punishment after the crime does not do anything for those murdered. In addition, individuals who cannot be deterred are sometimes punished simply because it is considered likely that will commit crimes in the future. This is a major justification for forced hospitalization and psychological treatment of potentially violent and mentally unstable persons.

These arguments about intent apply much more strongly to preventive actions against terrorist organizations and rogue nations. The conventional approach to war in democratic states favors retaliation after attacks. This was the rationale for the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine during the height of the Cold War: the US was prepared to unleash devastating nuclear destruction against the Soviet Union if attacked with nuclear weapons, and visa versa for the Soviets. That worked, although there were several close calls, as during the Cuban crisis.

But this approach is no longer adequate to fight terrorist organizations, states that sponsor terrorism, and dictatorial states that want to destroy their enemies. For it is becoming increasingly possible for terrorist organizations and governments to unleash biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons that will cause massive destruction. Retaliation may be slow and difficult if terrorists are widely dispersed so that it is hard to generate sufficiently severe reprisals to discourage their attacks. Rogue governments also are more capable of using these weapons surreptitiously, so that it might be many obstacles to determining who was responsible if they chose not to admit their responsibility. It is already difficult to know which groups are responsible for terrorist acts except when they brag about them.

In addition, many state-sponsors of terrorism often prey on the zeal of individuals who are willing to kill themselves in promoting what they consider a higher cause. These suicide bombers clearly cannot be punished after they commit their acts (although their families could be) because they forfeit their lives while attempting to kill and injury others. One can try to raise the probability that they will fail-through barriers, walls, and other protective activities- but free societies are so vulnerable that these can never be strong enough deterrents.

The only really effective approach is to stop them before they engage in their attacks. This is accomplished by tracking them down and imprisoning or killing them based on evidence that they intend to engage in suicidal attacks. Those planning such acts can also be punished on the basis of intent.

The same argument applies to dictators who are willing to use weapons of mass destruction to attack their enemies when they do not care if many of their populations are killed and maimed by retaliation from other countries. Dictators, like Saddam Hussein, may also greatly underestimate the likelihood of massive responses because sycophants feed them bad information, or they believe that democratic victimized states will be reluctant to make swift and decisive responses.

Admittedly, the evidence is usually more imperfect when trying to prevent attacks than when responding to attacks. Mistakes will be made, and the evidence of intent must be analyzed carefully. But criminals are convicted too on less than 100% certain evidence. As Posner says in his commentary, it is necessary to consider probabilities, not certainties.

Moreover, the degree of certainty required before preventive actions are justified has been considerably reduced below what it was in the past because the destructive power of weaponry has enormously increased. Perhaps most worrisome, the power of weapons continues to grow, and to become more easily accessible. Critics of preventive wars and other preventive actions against rogue states and terrorist groups ignore these major changes in weaponry and their availability. Democratic governments have to recognize that they no longer have the luxury of waiting to respond until they are attacked.

[GnRNightrain]

Preventive War--Posner
The U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. decision not to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and concern with the apparent efforts of Iran and North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons raise acutely the question when if ever a preemptive or preventive war is justified. If ?preemptive war? is defined narrowly enough, it merges into defensive war, which is uncontroversial; if you know with certainty that you are about to be attacked, you are justified in trying to get in the first blow. Indeed, the essence of self-defense is striking the first blow against your assailant.

But what if the danger of attack is remote rather than imminent? Should imminence be an absolute condition of going to war, and preventive war thus be deemed always and everywhere wrong? Analytically, the answer is no. A rational decision to go to war should be based on a comparison of the costs and benefits (in the largest sense of these terms) to the nation. The benefits are the costs that the enemy?s attack, the attack that going to war now will thwart, will impose on the nation. The fact that the attack is not imminent is certaintly relevant to those costs. It is relevant in two respects. First, future costs may not have the same weight in our decisions as present costs. This is obvious when the costs are purely financial; if given a choice between $100 today and $100 in ten years, any rational person will take $100 now, if only because the money can be invested and through interest compounding grow to a much larger amount in ten years. But the appropriateness of thus discounting future costs is less clear when the issue is averting future costs that are largely nonpecuniary and have national or global impact.

Second, and more important, and well illustrated by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if the threat of attack lies in the future it is difficult to gauge either its actual likelihood or its probable magnitude. But this is not a compelling argument against preventive war. What is true is that a defensive war is by definition waged only when the probability of an attack has become one; the attack has occurred. The probability of attack is always less than one if the putative victim wages a preventive war, because the attacker might have changed his mind before attacking.

But while the probability of a future attack is always less than one, the expected cost of the future attack?the cost that the attack will impose multiplied by the probability of the attack?may be very high, perhaps because the adversary is growing stronger and so will be able to deliver a heavier blow in the future than he could do today. It may be possible to neutralize his greater strength, but that will require a greater investment in defense. Suppose there is a probability of .5 that the adversary will attack at some future time, when he has completed a military build up, that the attack will, if resisted with only the victim?s current strength, inflict a cost on the victim of 100, so that the expected cost of the attack is 50 (100 x .5), but that the expected cost can be reduced to 20 if the victim incurs additional defense costs of 15. Suppose further that at an additional cost of only 5, the victim can by a preventive strike today eliminate all possibility of the future attack. Since 5 is less than 35 (the sum of injury and defensive costs if the future enemy attack is not prevented), the preventive war is cost-justified.

A historical example that illustrates this analysis is the Nazi reoccupation of the Rhineland area of Germany in 1936, an area that had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles. Had France and Great Britain responded to this treaty violation by invading Germany, in all likelihood Hitler would have been overthrown and World War II averted. (It is unlikely that Japan would have attacked the United States and Great Britain in 1941 had it not thought that Germany would be victorious.) The benefits of preventive war would in that instance have greatly exceeded the costs.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2004/12/index.html

[GnRNightrain]

In the meantime we have only allowed people that WE APPROVE OF to run for office. So how is this anything more than a puppet government and an instrument for the USA smack dab in the middle east? This is no true democracy.

What a bunch of crap this statement is.  I heard today that there are thousands of candidates running in the elections.  Over 300 of them are from the Shiites.  I also heard that 60-70% are projected to vote despite the violence.  That is much higher than we have here. 

As much as you want the election to fail, Iraq to fail, and for the government to be deemed a puppet government, the facts seem to be otherwise SLC. 

Of course, you might be getting some behind the scenes coverage from Al Jazeera that I havent seen yet.

[Will]

And I bet the coverage you get from Fox "News" is more accurate and unbiased. Give me a break. Both are propaganda.

[GnRNightrain]

And I bet the coverage you get from Fox "News" is more accurate and unbiased. Give me a break. Both are propaganda.

The fact that you would link Fox news and Al Jazeera says a lot.  Ill just let that statement stand on its own.