>I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting >further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement >in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from >going for the price... oops I mean ... peace. :o)
First off, thank you for recognizing the role of US troops in producing inspections in the first place.
Unfortunately, it is pretty insulting for you to mock the price of your proposed solution here, as if it were pocket change.
I think she wasn't referring to the cost, but to what awaits the US after the invasion (the *prize* of the invasion, rather then the *price* of the invasion). You know, a powerbase in the Middle East, big profits from building contracts, huge profits from oil exploitation contracts... Stuff like that.
Indeed, right now, one out of every one thousand Americans is in the Persian Gulf. That is a lot of separate families, a lot of kids that don't have moms and dads around, a lot of lonely wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Heck, some sailors ahve actually already missed their own weddings, after their length of deployment was repeatedly extended.
Occupational hazard. Everyone in the US military is there because s/he choose to be there. When you join the military, you can expect to be away from home for a long time.
While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time, and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone wants to get married.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the war is keeping oil prices sky high, with devastating effects on the US economy. Inflation was 1.6% this *month*, after rising 1.1% last month.
If it is any consolation to you, the US is not the only one feeling the effects. Just to pick one, fuel prices over here are also going in one direction only: UP! Less than a year ago I paid only a little over EUR 0,30 per litre for LPG; now it's over EUR 0,50 per litre.
And none of this even counts the hundreds of billions of dollars of direct costs of maintaining this military force in the desert.
Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind "you do the crime, you do the time".
And likewise, if the US goes to war it shouldn't complain later on when somebody hits back.
Thus, while Saddam Hussein will clearly only permit inspections so long as he is within days of being wiped out - it is the simple truth that the US can't pay this price forever... and I think that the US would greatly appreciate it if France, Germany, and like-minded Europeans, who are bearing none of these costs, but are reaping the benefits of the first Iraqi weapons inspections in FIVE YEARS, could at least recognize that this stuff isn't cheap for us.
Oh, we recognise that this isn't cheap for you -- just don't expect sympathy from us for the fact that America's foolish unilateralism is costing them a lot of money. BTW, this *is* costing us money -- or do you think that the stuff and people we've promised (SAM batteries with support troops for Turkey, to name just one) don't cost us any money?
But er, exactly what benefits *are* we reaping from the current weapons inspections? I see higher prices, I see increased security measures (we're still on Alert State Alpha), but I can hardly call those things "benefits".
Jeroen "Political Observations" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
