question everything



Ubaid Dhiyan's Facebook profile

Support Wikipedia
Kiva - loans that change lives
Get Firefox

a case against war

i guess i need to add my voice to the crescendo about now. george bush's unilateral crusade against the bad man of the middle east continues unfettered in the face of unprecedented opposition both at home and worldwide. people in all countries, from old allies to coerced friends, have expressed the feeling that this war is not necessary has presented itself in the form of demonstrations, rallies and related efforts including the coming together of poets in one sphere and actors in another. several arguments have been made against the president's insistence on war, some have focussed on the immense economic impact it is likely to have on the feebly recovering economy while others talk about the fact that the war is likely to spawn a whole new breed of terrorists intent on avenging american hegemony through terror attacks on its interests around the world. being on the brink of graduation and desperately seeking employment in this great land, i'm hoping against hope that the us does not go ahead with war because i believe its effects on the economy will be akin to kicking a sick man in the stomach. the us economy is currently very very fragile and i don't think will be able to suffer a war. gas prices in california are around $2/gallon, which is quite expensive. if this is a sign on things to happen in the coming months, the signs are ominous indeed. the congressional budget office puts the estimated cost of war between nine and thirteen billion dollars. besides that, incremental occupation costs are estimated between one to four billion a month. there are other estimates putting the cost at fifty to sixty billion dollars, the bottom line being, it is going to be incredibly expensive. there are other insidious costs, including the cost of buying and coercing allies into supporting the us war effort. in fact, some analysts have placed the cost of war at as much as 1.6 trillion dollars, in a worst case scenario. with the projected deficit here already in the hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years, a war just does not compute! there are expectations that the influx of cheap oil from the iraqi oil fields will offset the expenses incurred in waging the war, however, that argument is rather simplistic and fails to take into account several factors. for one, there is a very distinct possibility that the oil fields will not be allowed to be taken over without saddam trying to render them as useless as he possibly can, also, assuming that the oil will simply start flowing and cure all ills reflects a poor understanding of complex market movements. i'm not claiming to understand them either, but i can assert it is not that simple, the best that so much virtually free oil will do is skew the parameters, cause inflation and such. also, with the kind of opposition this war currently has, will the other countries just stand and watch as the us gobbles up the oil it gets from iraq? there is bound to be bad blood and straining of economic relations if the us tries to leverage its position as the "liberator" of iraq, by being partial to american companies. i've tried and tried to understand the motives behind the war, but ultimately it does not make sense to me, as it does not to most of the thinking people in the world. isn't there a hint of imerialistic notions in the manner american policy has been conducted for the past year? bush and his cowboy buddies are hoping to take over the world by pursuing a policy that has zilch support, both here, as well as around the world. it is time for the president to take a cold shower and reconsider his stand on the iraqi situation.

eXTReMe Tracker