| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Iraq War = Big Waste of $$$$ | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 23 2007, 11:19 AM (833 Views) | |
| Post #1 Oct 23 2007, 11:19 AM |
|
|
A quote from the Washington Post: The latest spending proposal brings the total current fiscal year request for Iraq, Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations to $196.4 billion, by far the largest annual tally since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If approved by Congress in its entirety, it would bring the total appropriated since then to more than $800 billion. At their current rate, war appropriations could reach $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office, a total that by some measures would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. One trillion dollars! And Bush vetos the S-CHIP bill because it "costs too much". I think it's terrible how much money has been wasted and how many lives lost (on BOTH sides) for a war that has only made the world a more dangerous place to live. We'd be better off if we had left Saddam in power. |
Civilian
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Oct 23 2007, 06:32 PM |
|
|
The title of the post is about the Iraq war. Yet, the numbers quoted are for the whole War on Terror. That approach is just a bit deceptive. The point might be valid if it is presented in a straightforward manner. As it is presented, it is quite meaningless. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Oct 23 2007, 08:09 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately, that is how the mainstream media is playing this out. Most of the Google results I get when I search for "Iraq War Budget" combines all of the theatres of battle under the Iraq umbrella in a blatant attempt to cast negative light on the Bush administration. MSNBC does point out that the cost of the was in Iraq alone would be around $600 billion if funds are approved, but little is said about the specifics of the president's budget request. The greatest detail I can find is here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gS-8Eu7...tAZrXWKe_-vy7dg |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Oct 23 2007, 08:19 PM |
|
|
For those who notice those little bits of deception, such arguments have the exact opposite of the desired effect. We become more convinced of the unsoundness of any position that has to be supported with misdirection. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people won't even notice the sleight-of-hand and will be swayed in the desired direction. We just have to point out such treacherous tactics when we see them--then hope enough people see the outing. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Oct 23 2007, 08:21 PM |
|
| Eye, I was doing research and edited my post above at the same time you posted. Just thought I'd let you know. :) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Oct 24 2007, 05:48 AM |
|
| My bad for not noticing what was included in that figure. I still think that the amount of money spent on the unjustified war in Iraq is obscene. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Feb 28 2008, 02:20 AM |
|
|
The Iraq War would have been a huge mistake if they paid us to do it, in my opinion. Nonetheless, all the estimates I have seen say the Iraq war will end up costing the United States well over a trillion dollars. Most say it will probably cost over 2 trillion. I believe those estimates include the veteran's benefits and other post-war costs. But military welfare seems to be what the neo-conservatives support--at least that is what it seems like to me. (And I did mean welfare, not warfare.) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Mar 2 2008, 10:44 PM |
|
|
Money is a stupid reason to fight or not fight a war. Iraq happens to be the current front in the War on Terror--a war we will fight, whether we choose to or not. One might disagree with the choice of Iraq as a front, but it is the grossest of naivety to think we would not be fighting somewhere and spending money in the process. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Mar 3 2008, 03:39 PM |
|
Some would argue that by definition, terrorism does not have traditional "fronts" and that it is a naive mistake to treat the war against terrorism as one would treat a traditional war --- ie, with a war "front" and through conventional military means. Rather, there is the argument that terrorism is more about intelligence and law enforcement (covert and traditional), as opposed to traditional military means. Regardless of whether the current combat in Iraq has much to do with terrorism (I believe less than 10% of the military skirmishes are actually against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, while the majority of the skirmishes are against more traditional insurgents), it is certainly a mistake to believe that we are avoiding terrorism elsewhere by fighting in Iraq. It would be a serious arrogance and underestimation to believe that every American-hating terrorist in the world is wrapped up in the Iraqi desert, or that terrorists are incapable of fighting on more than one front at a time. |
Member
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Mar 3 2008, 07:34 PM |
|
I used "front" metaphorically, to refer to a geographically (or even logically) separated effort in a war. The model that makes terrorism a law enforcement function is what made an attack the size of 9/11 possible. Terrorists would also very much like to launch an NBC attack against us. No. This is a war. It is a war against terrorism and all states that support terrorism. It is not a law enforcement action. Maybe, someday, when (if) the world as a whole works against terrorism, we can successfully return to thinking of terrorism as a law enforcement problem. To think about it that way today puts millions of lives at risk. Considering that most factions in Iraq have now bought into the new government and are actually working with the American military, I'd say that 90% of the current operations are against terrorists--probably significantly more. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Mar 3 2008, 09:08 PM |
|
1. If this is a war against terrorism sponsoring states, then why invade the country with far far far less sponsorship of terrorism than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others. If this is truly a military war against terrorism, then we invaded the wrong country. 2. The best and most recent stats I can find relate to Al Qaeda. The administration claims great success against Al Qaeda. At this point, most violence is attributed to anti-Shiite Sunni insurgents, not foreign terrorists. According to a State deaprtment analysis in 2006, Al Qaeda was responsible for 1 percent of attacks in Iraq. According to a July 2007 National intelligence estimate, the number is 15 percent. According to a September 2007 study by the Congressional research service, the number is less than 2 percent. So while the exact number is controversial, we can safely place the number between 1 and 15 percent attributable to Al Qaeda. As to other foreign terrorist groups, the are determined to be a very tiny proportion of the violence in Iraq. |
Member
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Mar 3 2008, 09:38 PM |
|
1. We were already at war with Iraq and Iraq was being overtly hostile to our forces legally conducting operations there. Furthermore, the best intel at the time (which was not entirely wrong) had the Iraqi government in possession of WMM technology and was harboring terrorists within its borders. This nexus of the technology to kill millions and the desire to do so was unacceptable--rightly so. This does not mean that our attention would never turn to Iran. It may well yet. However, we need to take things one step at a time. Oh, and Saudi Arabia is a nice convenient target of wacko conspiracy theories, but they are nowhere near the threat that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria were at the time. 2. Please produce those documents. Thank you. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Mar 4 2008, 03:55 PM |
|
1. In terms of WMD "technology" -- That argument applies to virtually every industrialized nation in the world. In terms of harboring terrorists, that statement never was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein Iraq -- As a secular government in the Middle East, he considered Islamic fundamentalists to be a major threat. Even our best intelligence at the time, knew there were no real connections between Hussein and fundamentalist terrorist groups. As always, I am happy to provide objective sources for my statements: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence, regarding pre-war and post war assessments of WMD programs and terrorist links: msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Phaseiiaccuracy.pdf Now, in terms of countries with WMD technology, and harboring terrorists -- If that was really the motivating objective, there are countries that would meet that definition-- Including Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea-- Countries that do support terrorists, and have active nuclear programs. Lastly, I'll address your statement that we were already engaged in operations in Iraq, when we were attacked by terrorists. That statement is entirely true. The bulk of the more spectacular attacks in Iraq --- ie, the suicide bombers, are orchestrated by foreign terrorists. But again, by definition, this is a law enforcement issue -- You can't stop a suicide bomber with the 4th Regiment -- You need proper intelligence gathering, security, and law enforcement to stop a suicide bomber -- Not tanks, bombers, and a naval fleet. Finally -- As you said, the foreign terrorists attacked us while we were already engaging in operations in Iraq. Logic would suggest, had we never gone into Iraq in the first place, then it would not be a hot bed for foreign terrorists. 2. As to the stats on the Iraqi violence, here is the report by the Congressional Research Service. It does incorporate the other finding that I discussed: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upload...crsiraq0907.pdf |
Member
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Mar 4 2008, 07:04 PM |
|
|
1. Bull. Sorry about the bluntness, but, BULL. Hussein was paying terrorist families for acts of terrorism. That is absolute proof that Hussein was not anti-Islamic terrorist. The nexus of terrorism and WMM technology was quite real. 2. I find no support for the percentages you cited in the document you presented. Maybe I overlooked them in that 62-page document, despite my use of search tools looking for those figures. Please direct us to the salient passages. Thanks. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Mar 7 2008, 07:59 PM |
|
1. Bull and bull. I note there was absolutely nothing posted refuting anything I said. 2. It is all in there. |
Member
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
1:23 PM Feb 7