• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

War without end

You get the impression listening to the Democratic presidential candidates (especially Obama) that they would never go to war anywhere, at any time, for any reason. You get the impression listening to McCain that he would make war first and ask questions later. I doubt this is quite true, but that's how the candidates sound, so that's where the debate tends to be steered.

We tend to focus on the current war:

We will rally, walk and dialogue on Wednesday, as concerned citizens are doing all over the country, to express our sorrow, frustration and anger at a war policy that shows no end in sight.

We want to make our voices heard: "Out of Iraq Now."

In addition, during this critical campaign season, we want to make it clear that a diverse array of citizens of our community believe that this war must end as soon as possible.

When we get out or Iraq is just one narrow question. Iran is a threat, and the whole Mideast is volatile. Russia is resurgent, and North Korea is dangerous. When and how do we use force or the threat of force to defend our interests? How do we even define our interests these days? We need to have a broader debate with the starting point of acknowledging that neither extreme -- isolationism nor nation-building -- is the right answer.


Mon, 03/17/2008 - 10:54am

We need to do cost/benefit analyses as well. Was the benefit *to us* of deposing Hussein worth the money and lives we have spent and will spend? Have we taken steps to ensure that such cost/benefit analyses will be more accurate when we're contemplating the next war? You'll recall that a Bush administration official named Andrew Natsios went to Nightline on April 23, 2003 to assure the American people that the cost to the U.S. to rebuild Iraq would be $1.7 billion.

See: http://www.masson.us/blog/?p=148

(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you

Larry Morris
Mon, 03/17/2008 - 3:33pm

"I think they got it wrong on purpose because if they

tim zank
Tue, 03/18/2008 - 7:03am

For what it's worth, the "money spent" and "the money we would save" argument is a hollow one, because even if we pulled out tomorrow that money would be wasted on bullshit anyway.

There are valid reasons to object to the war, but the money argument assumes we'd actually do something constructive with the money we saved.....fat chance of that....

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 03/18/2008 - 8:46am

I hate this....I am going to at least partially agree with Tim.

The problem I have is that we DO have domestic needs....but try getting $500 BILLION for any of those.

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 03/18/2008 - 8:50am

Hey, I just found this at the National Priorities Project website.

The cost of the Iraq war for FORT WAYNE- $228 Million.

What problems could we have fixed with that? Sewers come to mind.....flood control issues....etc.

Larry Morris
Tue, 03/18/2008 - 10:35am

One of the issues with the "money point" is that while we're spending the money on the wasted war effort, we don't have a chance to see if we'd actually spend it here, ...

Tue, 03/18/2008 - 10:40am

Another problem is that it's not like we're spending money we have. We're putting the war on the credit card -- a card issued in substantial part by the Chinese.