I don't think the point of this argument is whether we would win or not, I think it's whether or not we should invade. I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam would fall. The point is should we really be spending our resources on something that isn't necessary at the moment. Our countries economy is in dire need of help. and a war with Iraq isn't going to help that.

2 quick comments -

1) If we don't force inspections, are we going to end up with another Hitler?

2) War always helps the economy.

Gah, ill dig up the article later, put it this way - this was nto considered a good thing by the generals, at all. Sweet, found it. "The mock battle, conducted admi 1000 buildings in the biggest urban-war exersise the US ever had, confirmed what the Pentagon already knew: America may have the worlds most fearsome military but it is ill equiped to wage war in cities" it goes on to say basicly that the tactics used in the gulf war would not work, casualty rates amoung marines were often +80% and allot of the high tech gear they carry was useless.

It als goes on to point out that the tactic of using local resistance would be extrememly hard to use in and a signifigant ground force would be needed in the initial invasion.
Jolly good then. Just thought i'd point that out.

That's probably becasue it's rather hard to be taken out with an Ak-74 at 16000ft. If you need to take a city like Baghdad and there is signifigant resistance or an underground resistance forms after the fall the casualties are going to be high. Also worth noting the amount of assassinations and attamepts against the new government, which is still extremely weak, and he US has no exit plan for Afghanistan.

That is the assumption both political parties labor under but it is debatable. It is economic cocaine. A quick, temporary (hopefully) rush, followed by the realization that you just crammed your future up your nose instead of investing in your infrastructure or better yet leaving it in the productive sector. You try to use it as a little pick me up but eventually... "oak tree yer in my way."

Are we not at war right now?

The economy killed Bush Sr...and that was less than 2 years after Desert Storm I: The Saga Begins.

Cam: *laughs* We had this discussion in another thread. Are we at war? By definition, yes. Officially (as in declared by Congress, last done during WW2)? No.

1. How? Iraq has no industrial capacity. It has no access to raw materials. It has no money to by arms. It can barely feed its people let alone some none productive army on some forgein adventure. It's military is primarily Infantry fighting with little ground cover. There is no air force. There is little armor left. If Saddam has a nucular bomb he'll have to send it UPS. Is he an evil dictator? Well yes, but we really don't mind evil dictators as long as they do what their told. (Cf. Samosa, Noriagia, and Pinochet) Does he kill his own people? Yes, but we don't mind that either. We were perfectly happy to help in that endevor 13years+ ago. Has he attacked other neighbors besides Kuwait? Well ya, but again we were very happy about that and helped him in that endevor as well, suppling him with Anthrax and chemical weapon materials. By the way he didn't exactly roll over Iran when he had a functioning military, did he?

2. Well we are at war now while the economy tanks. Sure it will help cluster bomb makers. But 44 million people without health care may as well figure that they'll be with out another decade or two.

It's also worth noting the new CIA report which states that there is little danger from Iraq and that an attack makes the use of Chemical and Biological weapons far more likely. Well i may not have access to secret whitehouse briefings but i seem to be in sync with the CIA.

Here
Here

I love google news.

Refer to other threads and posts where Hussein's spending has been talked about. In short, he's spending money on what he wants to, not what is necessary. He barely has money to feed the people because he's building palaces.

I'm not saying he <b>will</b> end up another Hitler - I'm simply posing the question. I am neutral on an attack at this point, but I certainly believe we need to force inspections.

Our war right now is small enough that we haven't had to ramp up production yet. If we got involved in a full-fledged war, I'm willing to bet not insignificant sums of money that the economy would begin to recover. Jobs would be created, people would spend money, consumer confidence would go up...

I really didn't mean to ask the question, though it would look that way to those who don't know me personally. I was pointing out the fact that we are at war using ineffective sarcasm. Something I'm terrible about doing. My fault.

Once again though I want to thank you for pointing me toward an interesting thread I hadn't stumbled on.

Ok so I somehow missed the fact that Dave had just posted, he obviously answered my post. Damn I hate it when that happens.

True. Also the dollar would be devalued making low interest saving counter productive so more money is pumped into anything which may hold value, eventually leading to stock speculation... oops we just did that didn't we? Heavy government spending prevents the market from punishing malinvestment in a timely manner, causing the collapse to be longer and harder when it comes. Of course, I'm a history guy not an economics whiz... UT could weigh in here.

The question is moot. The economy is NOT in the shitter. The stock market is.

Ahh, true, something most people, including me fail to realize, mostly becuase the Media continues to say the economy is in the shitter.

Unemployment is 5.7%. That's worse than it has been, but 10 years ago the government felt that 5% was "full employment" and practically unreachable.

Economic growth is 1.5%. That's worse than it has been, but it's not recession, and over the late 70s-early 80s it was 0.7% during periods that were not felt to be recession.