Cost of War

Banned? What exactly for? No, you're right I don't need to deny anything, I have nothing to hide and I really believe in everything I say.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

Sorry about the late respond. I suppose the discussion has moved on since my last post, even if it appears to be mostly about Equilibrium's real identity. Anyway, I have to respond to the comments on my post, especially those by Yodle-La-HOO-HOOOO.

I don't think Saddam was immortal, but I know what you mean... Even though I think the "invasion" should have to last for at least a decade in order to make sure that when leaving Iraq they have a secure and well functioning nation to run on their own.

What in my post suggested that there was no reason to oppose Saddam on humanitarian grounds? You said you couldn't understand opposition based on humanity, and just because I can comprehend such a thing does not make me pro-Saddam.

So if I understand you correctly, as long as the numbers of dead civilians are lower during this one, two or three years of occupation than during Saddam's decades in power, you think the iraqis should be satisfied?

When we were talking about different kinds of liberty while discussing the Patriot Act I and II you weren't that interested in fundamental human rights....

Anywayz...

I do believe that liberty is a fundamental right. I do not believe that America should be able to refurnish the world left and right because of unclear reasons and then try and justify it by saying it was all done in the name of liberty. Because, no matter how good of a job the most part of the soldiers are doing in Iraq, that was and is not the reason to why USA invaded Iraq. And even if the situation in Iraq is still chaotic in january 2006 (or whatever the date was) my guess is that USA will move out of there even if peace and liberty is far away.

Ever heard of Hans Blix, the man appointed by the UN to investigate the existence or non-existence of WMD:s in Iraq? Simple question: Did he find any WMD:s?

And why did Colin Powell reportedly say "I won't read this crap!" when he got the evidence he was supposed to present to the world in his hands?

Politics?? So you do admit that the grounds that US went to war on was actually false? And of course it is politics! If your elected leaders tell the american people that they are going to war to secure the american homeland, while the reasons actually are something completely different, don't you think the people in a democracy like USA should have the right to know that??

If the numbers were the opposite, say a little under a thousand dead iraqi civilians and about 10.000 dead american soldiers, do you still think the actions would be defensible?

I assure you that civilian life was just as "incredibly important" to me when Saddam was in power. It was just as "incredibly important" to me when US left Iraq the first time and turned their back on the kurds and the shia muslims, who they are now fighting (oh, I wonder why they don't trust americans), and it was just as "incredibly important" to me when UN decided that sanctions was the best way to deal with Saddam, only it didn't touch him, only hurt the iraqi people. I never opposed an invasion, read my post in the earlier threads before the war and you'll see that. I opposed a US-led invasion because it is not for the sake of liberation and I opposed it because I didn't think it would be carried out in such a way that Iraq would transform into a safer place. Which it hasn't.

Eh.. ok. I don't know what that last thing has to do with this... even if I don't know which european country you're talking about. What about Africa? Or Asia?

True. Bush would never invade a democracy. That would be very hard for him to justify. But the reason to why he invaded Iraq was not that it was a despotic nation with atrocious civil rights violations *cough cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough* or that he wanted to bring liberty to the iraqis. Saudiarabia is a despotic nation who does not give a damn about civil rights and Bush thinks they are kind of cool.

About the terrorist ties... What terrorist ties?

To 7thson. Don't get me wrong, I think you're basically right and I agree with you pretty much. I just don't think your leaders share your sincerity or your aims with their actions.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

In relationship to the war I have to say you are probably right, but if the train is going in your direction anyway why not hitch a ride.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Just out of curiosity... that little counter is tied into ...what?

I think everyone understands that war costs a lot of money. A pertinent question remains, though. Why weren't all those kids immunized when the military was shrunk down during the previous presidential term? Oh what great things could have been done with that surplus!

If you want to look at cost as a whole to this nation check out what happens with trade deficits and how those are somehow never reconciled.

Their arses perhaps… sorry, but that whole site is a bit of a joke to me because it is very misleading… over half of the links that will supposedly support their claims don’t work, and if you look past their little “counter” it doesn’t take long to figure out their main objective is anti-war/anti-Bush…

Their claim over their counter states “The War in Iraq Cost the United States”… and then tries to substantiate that claim based on estimated Congressional Appropriations… the first appropriation was for 79 billion and the second for 87 billion…I haven’t checked out the first 79 billion yet but I did the 87 billion… and what that site neglects to make clear is the 87 million supported not only ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but relief and reconstruction efforts in both countries as well… reconstruction and relief that includes food, medicine, electricity, safe drinking water, irrigations systems, sanitation systems, roads, bridges, public housing, railways, airports, communication systems, etc. for the Iraqi and Afghani people…. The appropriation also includes funds to set up an Iraqi and Afghani government and the security needed to maintain those governments… plus relief aide to various surrounding countries for Iraqi and Afghani refugees…

Did anyone else notice that out of the eight options that site claims those funds could have aided, only three actually dealt with anyone/anything outside of the United States?

__________________

They also failed to neglect that the $87 billion voted on was to be spread out over five years, I believe.

It's a gimmick, plain and simple. A big number for people to become awestruck by.

Yes, but not entirely false. The number shown IS the cost of the war..regardless of the time span. It includes relief, reconstruction, everything, but it is the cost of this whole ordeal, no matter how you look at it.

Question: if Bush said something that you thought was misleading, and my defense of it was that it was "not entirely false," would you be satisfied?

Not to be a stickler, but you never answered my post on page one.

That's not an answer, unless you believe that UN resolutions are unimportant. That's like saying "so what if they broke the law? These other people did, and they got away with it." Consistency is needed, yes, but you can't excuse defiance by pointing to another instance in which it was not dealt with.

That's not even delving into the matter that each resolution is unique, and violating some is far more serious than violating others.


What other means? Is there a nice, clean way to invade a country and overthrow it's government that the U.S. military is unaware of?


It doesn't run both ways at all, because those other members wouldn't have IP addresses identical to Cait's.

Drop the facade, man. We all see through it.

Repeat:
Your validating data source for that counter is?


Don't tell me that web counter is tied to some sort of governmental war expenditure database. If you said that I'd think that you were being ridiculous.

Plus, in accounting, there is no AP without an AR. There is payback... look at the dollars and where they go. They don't disappear into the desert never to be seen again.

The reason that the US is in Iraq is because Iraq broke the UN Treaty (cease fire) that it signed during the first Gulf War. There were 40+ resolutions and Iraq broke over half of them.

Perhaps so. Either way, the loss is more of a one-time thing, and at least is being done to grant liberty to those who live. That counts for something.


I'm not saying you are pro-Saddam, but if you opposed invasion, you're not really left with much in the way of overthrowing him, and therefore, there isn't really wouldn't be any adequate to stop him from doing what he was doing; which would be the primary aim of someone whose concerns were humanitarian in nature.


No. I can't put a number on it. But I do know that 10,000 killed in a war of liberation cannot be compared to over 200,000 killed at a dictator's whim.


I'm plenty interested in fundamental human rights; I'm pretty sure I'm the one who brought it up when discussing the Patriot Act, while stating that the "rights" the Act infringes on are nowhere near "fundamental" rights.


How do you know why the USA invaded Iraq? Many, many reasons were given (23, by one person's count). What method do you have of determining which ones played a role more than others?

As for unclear reasons; I've listed many very clear reasons, and so has the administration. Ties to terrorism first and foremost, followed by civil rights violations, and suspicion of WMD-possession. What exactly is unclear?


Can't argue with speculation. I guess we'll see.


No, he didn't. That doesn't really address what I said, though. The WMDs weren't there, and a few people thought they wouldn't be. MOST thought they would, include several other major foreign intelligence agencies, various U.S. politicians in both parties, and the previous U.S. administration. It is impossible, then, for the WMD-failure to be solely Bush's.


Source? Assuming it's truth, I'd say it's because he wasn't wholly confident in the intelligence. And neither was Bush, actually; he expressed skepticism of the evidence he was shown by CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee). Tenet described the existence of WMDs as a "slam dunk."


Uh, no. Where did I say that?


Sure they should. I'm merely pointing out that you've stopped arguing about the war, and started arguing about Bush. What you're saying now is true, but it isn't an argument against the War in Iraq.


Defensible? Yes. The same logic would apply.


That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that you can want something to happen, but oppose it when it does based on the reasons you THINK the person is doing it, even if they're doing what you want them to do.


What way is that? And on what grounds do you state that Iraq is not a safer place?

All polls show that most Iraqi people are glad Saddam is gone, and most letters from soldiers on the ground say that the situation is not nearly as violent and chaotic as it would appear based on the scattered news reports (which are obviously not going to report peace; you can't report non-events).


I didn't have a specific European nation in mind. I can grab specific bits of data if you like, but last I looked virtually every nation in Europe had a significantly bleaker economic picture than the United States. Not exactly war related, but it certainly speaks against the idea that Bush is a "mess," given the tremendous success of his economic policies.


Because they've given in and agreed to cooperate with weeding out terrorism. Saddam, on the other hand, was defiant to the last.


Exactly. You know quite well that we found no WMDs, and that there was no demonstrable connection between Iraq and 9/11 (though links to Al-Qaeda exist), but you probably haven't heard that Saddam was offering cash to the families of suicide bombers, or that he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, or that he attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. All too often, we investigate selectively.

Bush declared war on terrorism; don't you think these sorts of things qualify?

Moreover, on Monday, an AP story from Cairo detailed a letter sent from some of the militant leaders in Iraq to Osama bin Laden, stating that "The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."

Iraq is a clear, obvious part of the war on terror. It's benefits range from altruistic (the liberation of an oppressed people) to military (fighting terrorism) to diplomatic (establishing a second democracy in the other). I don't know which of these reasons, if any, served as the primary motivator for action. All I know is that these benefits exist, and they justify the action easily, on both humanitarian and pragmatic grounds.

My main point is, while the number may be misleading (slightly), you must admit that its not an immense exageration and that at least 80% of that money on the counter is an accurate representation of money being spent, if not more. You don't need validating data and links to figure that one out. If you would like a website with a list of how much each weapon costs to manufacture upkeep and arm, as well as how many the US is using, let me know, I can dig up something. Its more than you think, not to mention things are cheaper when they go through ther military, those 'relief' packages come at 1$ a piece when if they were sold commercially...try 12$.So yes, the number is misleading, but in both ways....but saying that at least 80% if that money is actually being spent on this war is reasonable wouldn't you say?

I don't know about you, but even half that amount isn't worth spending for whats happening in Iraq now.

I don't do this often, but prove it. Show me the name of these 40 resolutions and a link to an explanation of each. Theres no way Iraq can break 40 resolutions when an embargo and sanction stricter than any before was implaced on it.

Sorry, but I forgot about reading that, but that arguement can go on forever, and instead ill just answer this post, and hope to remember to recheck your reply, eh I'll make SURE I recheck it.

Well then, if its ok to let some people get away with something and not others..I'm going to choose to let hmmmm JAPANESE people steal at the place I work and not say anything, but if a SPANISH man steals, I am going to alert the manager of the store and get all up in his ass. It doesn't work that way Yoda, no one is going to respect a country with double standards, selective hearing, selective punshing, and what not. If I was being punished for a crime knowing that someone else was being let free having commited the same crime, I'm going to reject the US too and reject the punishment. Its time to grow up. You said it yourself, consistency is needed.

I'm glad you aren't my moral advisor or anything lol. Because according to you, I can steal a 1$ pack of gum but not the 2$ one. .

I can't answer you, I've said this before, I don't know the best solution, but I do know this is not it. I thought it was at first, after afghanistan I didn't mind going for Iraq, but then (before the US actually went in) I became staunchly against it.

Well, then why don't I just become whatever you want me to be, since you just aren't getting the fact that I'm not who you think I am. And also if you can see through me, doesn't that mean you can't see me?

Sorry, don't have time. Plus I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I gave you the pertinent data, look it up. Look at what Iraq signed with the UN including France, Germany, Russia et al in 1992-1993 to stop the Gulf War. It's on the US govt page as well.

Sheez!

If you're going to be so argumentative the least you can do is have your facts straight.

Django:Part Deux.

I take offense to that. All you had to do was say 'look it up yourself, because I am not entirly sure I can back what I am saying up'.

YOU'RE the one who made the claim, not me, therefore its YOUR responsiblity to provide backup. I can always backup what I say, if you ask for it, and I'd appreciate it if people did the same when I ask them.

BUT, since you don't have time, I'll let you slide this time and go look up the info for you. And drop the insults, please.

Actually it's like this:

"I've argued this stuff to death and everything I'm saying has already been backed up on this site in various threads and you're just another one I'd have to repeat it for".

I actually MAY decide not to let you slide ... I'm not entirely sure about that yet. If animated counters back up your data then I'm not all that interested.

BTW, I didn't insult you.

Yeah... that was more of a shot than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.

Anyways, f*ck it, Check this link... it describes 17 of the violations in question:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm