OT: The Price of Plutocracy

Page 3 of 4  
Robert Green wrote:

Okay: Christian Science Monitor "Iraq war, now winding down with US troop exit by December, has cost more than $800 billion so far. But ongoing medical treatment, replacement vehicles, etc., will push costs to $4 trillion or more." http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will-cost-more-than-World-War-II
And the reason I have "no citation" is that I did not assert $800 billion as a FACT, I merely said it was the "latest number I'd seen." I'm glad you dug out some contrary examples.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will-cost-more-than-World-War-II
as
dug
Either way it's a case of "real money" that's going to dog us for quite a while. )-: I think what I resent most is that I think we've been duped into fighting proxy wars for folks like Saudi Arabia (who can damn well finance their own stinking wars), Israel and even Iran, who has to be happy that we've defanged their mortal enemies for them. We should be sending out "world police work" invoices to all the parties that have benefitted from having Saddam removed.
I always thought we should have just put a bounty on his head of a billion bucks and let the whole world go "Wanted Dead or Alive" on him and his two sons. Once they were gone, all we needed to do was convince numbers 4 through 7 of the remaining men in the Iraqi "line of succession" to take on the job of ruling Iraq. With one caveat: "Don't make us issue another billion dollar bounty on YOU and promote the NEXT three guys in line. It's what we end up doing, but at a cost that makes a billion in bounty money look like the deal of the century.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

I think the First Gulf War actually turned a profit for us.

We did that for Osama ben Laden. Didn't work worth squat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Three things. 1). There's little use in asking why you ignore the overall cost of the war and focus on only a part. That is akin to saying your yearly car cost is 12x your monthly payment, and ignoring gas and repairs. 2). Your facts and citations have yet to be proven facts or valid. 3). If you're going to play games, make them good games. Stupid games are not good games.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

You must be an athiest to deny the Christian Science Monitor!
I didn't "ignore" the other costs. I reported what the war was reported to have cost. Period.
Oh, by the way, have you found a popular uprising in history instigated and run entirely by the poor?
You recall I claimed such was rare to nonexistent. You laughed and called me names similar to the above.
I assume you're still looking (just as I'm still looking for my copy of The True Believer).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd also point out that the "cost" of the two wars is most often brought up here in the context of it being the prime cause of the govts current $14tril debt. In that context, the wars cost about $1.3tril. to date. The higher numbers factor in all kinds of additonal costs, some that are legitimate, some that are pure speculative numbers pulled from the air by folks who have a clear agenda. Most of those additional costs are FUTURE costs as well, so even if they do indeed have to be paid someday, they are not the cause of the $4tril in new debt we have added in just the last two years or the major cause of the $14tril debt.
Examples of those additional costs include future medical payments for vets, which is legitimate. Others are not so legitimate, like claiming that increases in other parts of the defense budget over the last 10 years should be attributed to Iraq. Or factoring in some magical "macroeconomic number", which is supposed to be the cost to the rest of the economy from the wars.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

BTW, it's ironic that you bandy about the word apologist, but you appear to be an apologist for the war in Iraq. Which part did you like the most? The part where we went in under false pretenses, the part where we spent ridiculous amounts of money, or the stellar outcome that secured Iraq's future forever, stabilized the area, and won everlasting friendship?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/05/11 09:53 am, RicodJour wrote:

... and created a situation that caused most of Iraq's Christians to flee for their lives.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the intelligence gathering books? Sigh.
Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states. White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene.
Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what information that the powers that be chose to release. There was essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. And US, British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing WMD programs. And his continuing to fire missles at US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. His playing games with the UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs that he was hiding. Then factor in the genocide he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands that died as a result of his actions.
None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. What you apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind of revenge for 911. The links between the two at the time were:
1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD that could be used against the US or to start another war in the middle east.
2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting many terrorists organizations. There was some sketchy evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time. Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but that's after the fact. Bush saw this as an opportunity to get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. Similar to what Obama just did in Libya. The obvious difference being in the cost of the two outcomes. But that is different than denying that there was justification for the action.
My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war. The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. But if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against, for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes. All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know the outcome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious purposes. Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray and never have gotten together at all, even now. Then the absence of an agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. Last but one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army. Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the large military and police apparatus of Saddam. That generated a large number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat "legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.
Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq, that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all possible.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you believe that you need an addition, it's lunacy to start without adequate plans and hire the first contractor that shows up at the door.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm surprised we finally agree on something, and this of all things... I had mixed feelings about the war before the start too and was concerned about the possible outcome. I was hoping that when the coalition had 400,000 troops ready to invade and knowing that we had kicked his ass last time, that Saddam would finally fully cooperate with the UN. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
There is no question that there was considerable validity to the argument against invading. However that is different than claiming that Bush lied. Most of those saying he lied would have been calling for his impeachment had he done nothing and later Iraqi WMDs were used. I can just hear the same Monday morning quaterbacks saying "Everyone knew he had WMDs. He had used them against his own people. The CIA, British Intelligence, Israeli intelligence, all knew he had them. Look at what Hillary Clinton, Obama, John Edwards, etc all said in 2002! They knew he had WMDs and was a threat. Bush should be impeached!
Unfortunately in the real world you have to make decisions based on what inteliigence information you have at the time and what is believed to be correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Which shows your abysmal ignorance of American law. The president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He may, according to our constitution, deploy them anywhere for any reason and his decision cannot be gainsaid by the Congress or the courts. While it is true that the Congress has the sole authority to "declare" war, the president has the unfettered right to "wage" war.
As for the Patriot Act, exactly what parts of it do you find problematic? Be specific. If you can muster a cogent objection, I'll gut you like a fish.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Once again, you disparage a statement of mine without presenting any rational basis.
Face it, if anyone gave a fig about your unsubstantiated opinion, you could make a fortune penning the prizes inside fortune cookies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Away on a 1 1/2 day trip hot air ballooning. That was a blast!
Anyway, I'm surprised too that we agree!! One more reason to stay civil with those with whom we usually disagree!!
The problems with the WMD was faulty intelligence or misinterpretation of weak intelligence. When it is about something of this magnitude, intelligence should be better. I really don't like the idea of starting a war with faulty intelligence like that. In my layman's opinion, the people in charge of the intelligence interpretation should have been punished severely. But that is all water under the bridge.
Now for Iran ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I find it interesting (in an administrative manner, not any kind of conspiracy) that the CIA chief at the time was a holdover from Clinton. Not only that, but he was CIA chief under Clinton when we bombed the African Aspirin Factory and the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo (?). So he had a rather long history of faulty intelligence, yet they kept him around.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know if I'm up to "interesting". That word has gotten bad connotations. But a sailplane ride is definitely in my future ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig

R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

It is generally held that the Iraqi army self-disbanded. That is, the people in the army were not "fired," they simply went home. Just like the Confederate Army, the German and Japanese armies after WW2, and virtually all the other armies of a defeated belligerent (although many believe the Confederate army didn't REALLY disband, but is simply waiting for the right moment...).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.