Cost of Iraq war???????

[speed220mph]

Russ: IMHO, winning would be to support the Iraqis until they can handle things themselves, such as keeping from getting overrun by the Iranians et al. Granted, this deal is similar to Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Once you have hold of a Tar Baby, it's hard to let go, i.e., without waving the white flag and running like hell.

Invade Iran, no that would be a bad idea. They need to have the atom bomb.LOL

I don't know who has the answers to this and other unsolvable problems other than the Good Lord. I'm sure he's sitting up there slapping his knee and watching what's going on while waiting for That Day when he pulls the plug on the whole miserable deal.

Think I'll go back to the garage and tinker with my car.

 

[Mike]

excerpts from an interview between writer Studs Terkel and Paul Tibbets, the man who led the mission that dropped the first Atomic Bomb:

Studs Terkel: One big question. Since September 11, what are your thoughts? People talk about nukes, the hydrogen bomb.

Paul Tibbets: Let's put it this way. I don't know anything more about these terrorists than you do. I know nothing. When they bombed the Trade Centre
I couldn't believe what was going on. We've fought many enemies at different times. But we knew who they were and where they were. These people, we don't know who they are or where they are. That's the point that bothers me. Because they're gonna strike again. I'll put money on it. And it's going to be damned dramatic. But they're gonna do it in their own sweet time. We've got to be in a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn't waste five seconds on them.

Studs Terkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

Paul Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newpapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there

 

[Mark Worthington]

There are some good points raised in this thread, by both sides. Yes, this war has cost a boatload of cash (although I'm dubious of the objectiveness and the quality of data that is used by the National Priorities project, a leftist organization closely affiliated with Moveon.org). Yes, there probably is a cause-and-effect relationship with wartime deficit spending and the fact that the US dollar is in the shitter right now (worth less than the Canadian dollar - YIKES!)

But Dean asks a great question that I have yet to hear answered by anyone on the left; what's the solution? I mean it must be fun to go to protest rallies with bra-free women and hold up pictures showing Bush = Hitler, to concoct schemes about Bush's manipulation of the Ohio and Florida voting machines and his hurricane-making weather machine, and then turn around and state with the snide knowledge of a trusted insider that Bush is also feeble minded. It sure is fun to make fun of people and sling shit, but, please, can you, or anyone on the left, stop bitching long enough to propose a real solution to our country's problems?

Oh, by the way, the left has to be disturbed that this story ran in their flagship publication today:

Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves - New York Times

 

[Bill Musarra]

Dean,
I am sure you would qualify for the free book(The Political Zoo), CD, personal writings,or whatever from Micheal Savage.


For those of you that don't know him, tune in to talk radio at night(EST). He doesn't have the "Rush" size audience, but I bet he has the most knowledgeable audience out there. He is out of San Francisco. Knows his facts, knows his history, people places and events. Pretty well versed in religion as well. He gets off onto resturants, his dog, or anything that will keep him from ranting at times, and oh by the way, has a tendency to "get upset" when the liberals do their thing.

Bill

 

[Duncan Potter]

OK, I hate forum political discussions, but I'll give it a shot.

Right now, in Iraq, declare victory and leave. We deposed Saddam, we found out he has and had no WMD, the Iraqis are no threat to anyone now except themselves. We have done all those things that the administration used as excuses to get us into this war. We left VietNam under much worse circumstances and we survived, and the commies didn't invade, so why not leave Iraq before one more life is lost?

Long term, do with energy what JFK did with space. When faced with a perceived threat to our national security from Soviet superiority in space, JFK announced a major mobilization on many fronts with a specific goal and timetable. It motivated the nation, produced some of our finest technological achievements, and forms the basis for some of our best industries even today.

Announce that we are going to be totally free of the need for imported oil within 10 years. Mobilize government, private industry, and education to achieve the goal. Then we can stop funding radical Islam with our oil dollars, stop letting our desperate need for their oil dictate our foreign policy options, and we can leave them alone with their religion, their oily sand, and their camels. Oh yeah, we could use some of those Iraq war dollars to fund the research. Hey, then if we develop some cool energy efficient technology, we could sell it to the rest of the world and help our trade deficit. And our guys that are currently getting shot up in Iraq could maybe have jobs designing and making this stuff and they could stay home and raise their families!

So thats a couple of concrete suggestions from one liberal.
But what do I know. I wasn't smart enough to vote Cheney either time....

 

[Howard Jones]

How costly would be them bastards blowing up the school bus your daughter is on tomorrow morning? Do you really think that if we had stuck our heads into the ground they would have left us alone?

The blame Bush, USA, crowd always forgets that since we attacked then back we have not been attacked again. What has that been worth?

Thank god the USA fought back when no one else would have. Well nearly no-one, Thank you England. Same ol story again and again. Bullies NEVER leave you alone until you kick their asses for them. How many times will the world need to relearn that one? What will we do when the bullies have nukes and are not afraid to use them?

This war against the Muslims is going to really get ugly before it's over. If we can count the dead in the hundreds of thousands we are going to be lucky. More than likely it's going to make WW2 look like a girl scout picnick.

I say we haven't attacked them enough! But thats just me.

 

[Mark Worthington]

OK, I hate forum political discussions, but I'll give it a shot.

Right now, in Iraq, declare victory and leave. We deposed Saddam, we found out he has and had no WMD, the Iraqis are no threat to anyone now except themselves. We have done all those things that the administration used as excuses to get us into this war. We left VietNam under much worse circumstances and we survived, and the commies didn't invade, so why not leave Iraq before one more life is lost?

Long term, do with energy what JFK did with space. When faced with a perceived threat to our national security from Soviet superiority in space, JFK announced a major mobilization on many fronts with a specific goal and timetable. It motivated the nation, produced some of our finest technological achievements, and forms the basis for some of our best industries even today.

Announce that we are going to be totally free of the need for imported oil within 10 years. Mobilize government, private industry, and education to achieve the goal. Then we can stop funding radical Islam with our oil dollars, stop letting our desperate need for their oil dictate our foreign policy options, and we can leave them alone with their religion, their oily sand, and their camels. Oh yeah, we could use some of those Iraq war dollars to fund the research. Hey, then if we develop some cool energy efficient technology, we could sell it to the rest of the world and help our trade deficit. And our guys that are currently getting shot up in Iraq could maybe have jobs designing and making this stuff and they could stay home and raise their families!

Good suggestions.

But the adverse consequences of abandoning Iraq to potential Islamofascists now are much higher than they were when we abandoned Vietnam to the communists, so any Iraq exit strategy (and I agree there should be one) needs to account for the long-term risks to western interests.

I agree with you that weaning ourselves from mideast oil would be one of the best things we could do for the west, from multiple perspectives (economic, environmental and security). However, JFK's mobilization of the US scientific and engineering communities to a goal to win the space race was a lot easier than it would be to find an alternative to imported oil. There is a huge infrastructure investment in our energy delivery systems and the goal of reducing dependance on foreign oil is a lot more nebulous than the specific engineering and space exploration goal that Kennedy set forth.

Good suggestions, but they tend to oversimplify the problem and downplay the consequences of failure.

 

[Duncan Potter]

Mark, thanks for your thoughts. Yes, my ideas are oversimplified in the post, that is one of the reasons I don't like forum political discussions. A full discussion would require many hours over many a cold beer.

I am convinced our (the USA's) practical well being is tied more to the use of oil than any other factor by far. Today we are funding the Islamic terrorists, tomorrow we will be butting heads with India and more importantly, China. We are already seeing this in the Sudan.

The fact that our oil based infrastructure is so big a part of our economy makes it even more critical that we change.

We need to keep oil for the things that can't be done any other way, like firing up big honkin V8's and racin' cars!!!!!

 

[Ian K]

By the way, how many attacks have there been in this country since we started the war on terrorism? Thats what I thought.

Dean, if you are talking Terrorist attacks in the 50 states + D.C.? None. However,
there were only 4 attacks here since 1900. And of those 4, only 1 was connected
to Islamic Terrorists. The others were, in order:

1920 - a TNT attack on Wall Street, believed to have been Bolshevists anarchists
1975 - bomb in historic NYC Tavern linked to Puerto Rican nationalist group
1993 - WTC garage bombing - linked to Islamic Terrorists
1995 - Oklahoma City federal building - Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols

You might make a case for the 1996 pipe bomb during the Olympics in Atlanta, but
to think that this war on terrorism is going to protect the US, I highly disagree.
If anything, we are angering more people who may very well become terrorists and
look to take their war here.

And this comes from someone who lost a very close first cousin on 9/11.

Ian

 

[BigB98]

Oil dependency the reason we're there???? Really?? Hmmm...if only we could have utilized our own oil resources over the years. But drilling in Alaska would be trading animals lives for American soldiers and Iraqis lives. That just wouldn't work out well...I mean what would PETA say? Better to be at war for oil.

 

[Scott Calabro]

Oh how I miss MoJo Jo Jo!

In case anyone else missed him, here he is....

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

"Thank god the USA fought back when no one else would have. Well nearly no-one, Thank you England"

Ahem. Australia is also helping you in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

 

[Steve C]

Pete...Spot on and THANKS...Steve

ps..You and we will need your bountiful Uranium ore hopefully sooner than later..We better get on the Nuclear bandwagon soon...Nuclear in the day for power and light , hydrogen producction in off-peak.....solve a lot of problems

 

[Chris P.]

Repost:

Jesus H Christ people, stop using that "When's the last time we've been attacked since we invaded Iraq?" bullshit. How long was it between the first World Trade Center bombing and the Cole? As if Baghdad housed all the would be terrorists anyway - wake up. If you want to count the smaller, indirect bombings like in Saudia Arabia and Jordan, there were 2 before the Cole and there have been something like 6 since we went into Baghdad and 8 since 9/11 so let's put that to rest - quit making up history. Besides, who needs a "Commander in Chief" that actually says "Bring 'em on." ? I absolutely can't believe he said that. Treason.

And what's with this "What's YOUR solution?" How convenient - you don't happen to need one because you'll agree with whatever the right does anyway. Let me tell you something - I don't need a solution because I'M NOT ON CAPITOL HILL MAKING THE DECISIONS. We vote people into office to do that and expect them to have US and the rest of the world on their minds when they make those decisions. The fact that PNAC has influence on this administration, some of the founders and developers of PNAC are or were IN this administration, and the fact that this administration is doing a great job in alienating us from the rest of the world all falls neatly together. Let me tell you something else - it's not about right or left, republican or democrat. I am not a democrat. I am not republican. And I certainly WILL NOT bring religion into these matters because 1) I don't believe in that shit 2) that shit is at the root of ALL wars in history (and yes, even the American Revolution).

9/11 happened so what do we do? We invade a country that had nothing to do with it instead of intensifying our efforts where we could have gotten them. Every democrat I know agreed with going into Afghanistan, but we spent a piddly amount of time there. I remember all the cold remarks from the right about the piddly cruise missile attack that Clinton ordered. Where are those voices now when we should have concentrated on Afghanistan? We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam himself was against the same terrorists and you know what? He managed to keep them out.

Iraq is sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve and it is largely untouched. We didn't like the fact that Iraq might have been building up a sizable nuclear program because they'd be able to defend those oil reserves.

You people need to plug your hole and find out what you don't know about the rest of us before your start your screaming. I'll spell it our for you: all because someone does not agree with the fact that we invaded Iraq does not mean they like or agree with what Saddam did. It also does not mean they don't support are troops. People like you who make this shit up is helping a lot to divide this country - THAT is unAmerican. Every time I hear a republican or anyone from the right (including that Rush asshole who I had to listen to on a business trip) talking about a topic like this, I never hear any pertinent facts. BUT - I do hear them complaining about the left not offering facts and when this bimbo from the right finally shuts up after half an hour, I have gained nothing useful from it all. It was all just whining. I hear the same thing on this forum too; not from EVERYONE, but from most.

Don't forget; yes, Saddam was a ruthless dictator that needed to be dealt with, but he did do a hell of a lot for that country before we fucked him over and watched him get beaten by Iran. Woah! Iran - but they're bad guys too!

America is nowhere near perfect, and for the record - I am for staying in Iraq even though I have always been against going in because pulling out now is way too dangerous. But, we made it that way. Think about it - It's more dangerous for us now than it was in 2002. Where are the real terrorist threats? I don't know, but we're not stopping them in Iraq.

 

[Dean Lampe]

Quite an enjoyable banter! I am all for reducing our dependency on oil. It isn't going to be easy. Unfortunately I don't think most have the spirit to pay more in order to accomplish this.

You simply can't pack up and leave. We must wait for the Iraqis to stabilize their country. This is going to take a little more time but it is the right thing to do. Whether we like it or not, a few of us need to stand up and protect the rest. I agree, this is going to get worse before it gets better. And yes, we are angering a lot of people but they are the bad guys! This is not a fight over land. This is a fight because these people can't get along with others. They believe that we are infidels and we either need to convert to Islam or be killed. I really don't know how to win but I believe we need to continue the fight. The most powerful weapon we have would be if the so called " moderate Muslims" here in the US and around the world would speak out against the extremest. They are either for it or against it. If they are against it, say so loudly. If you are for it, shoot'em!

 

[Dean Lampe]

Chris, how does that Cool Aid taste? Where do you get your facts? When I hear you talk about the republicans and the right and state so eliquintly that they have no facts I wonder where you get you info, moveon.org?

Sorry for the edit but I read your post again. Do I understand you to say you don't believe in God?

 

[Ian K]

Oil dependency the reason we're there???? Really?? Hmmm...if only we could have utilized our own oil resources over the years. But drilling in Alaska would be trading animals lives for American soldiers and Iraqis lives. That just wouldn't work out well...I mean what would PETA say? Better to be at war for oil.

Considering the US is the number three producer of oil (about 8.3 million barrels/day) by
a considerable margin (number four is Iran at 4.1 million/day), yet we are the largest
consumer (over 20.5 million/day) by a huge margin (number two is China at 7.2 million/day),
I would say that drilling in Alaska would not be a good long term solution (and many others
in the Dept. of Energy agree).

Also, it is believed that Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil, and 110 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas. Also, due to years of wars and sanctions, it is expected that Iraq has
at least another 100 billion barrels of oil could be produced. The 112 billion place them solidly
at number two in the world, the extra 100 could push them to number one (which is Saudi
Arabia currently). Also, Iraq is one of the cheapest countries as far as oil production goes,
and have only drilled 2000 wells to date (as opposed to Texas' 1 million).

So, yes, oil was a big consideration ... especially considering Alan Greenspan said
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows:
the Iraq war is largely about oil." - a quote form his recently released memoir.

Ian

 

[Russ Noble]

Do I understand you to say you don't believe in God?

Hell.....! Which God? Your God? My God? Buddah? Allah? I hope we don't have a heretic in our ranks in the form of Chris....

Some people think religion and God is merely a crutch for those that are not strong in themselves! A sort of a feel good brain washing exercise....

The burning question is, which God is the right God? There are millions who fervently believe their God is the right one and will go to war to prove it!

This could start an interesting new thread drift.

 

[Dean Lampe]

I have nothing better to do, let it drift!rockonsmile

I really do need to get back to politics at some point. I have a brother-in-law coming to stay for the holiday that is an emotional democrate. When things get quiet, I like to stir it up a little. (sorry, I don't like football) This thread is like a good stretch before a long run!

 

[David Briggs]

It is interesting to note that many people seem to think that our actions in the Middle East today are what makes the Islamic Fundamentalists seem to hate us, they have resented us for years, we represent everything they are not. It is only lately that they have been able to reach out and hit us.
The United States has always been a target for groups that resent us for our success, industrial and military strength, materialism and our ability to affect events and governments world wide.
Sadly we insist on exporting our system of government and capitalism to places that really have no interest or desire to be just like us.
And we continue to export technology and jobs as if we are ashamed of our success and wish to give it away to anybody looking for a short cut to the top.
As far as oil is concerned there is a delicate balancing act that is always going on, how much money can the petrolem producing countries extract from us without collapsing our economies and thus killing the goose that lays the Golden Egg?
They need our $ because most of those countries really don't produce anything and if they weren't sitting on huge reserves would be sitting at the side of the road watching the world go by.
Just the fact that we do have reserves in Alaska helps to keep prices in check and if we ever did decide to go after that oil, OPEC would reduce the cost of their product low enough to compete.
It is a nice fantasy to envision a world where in we don't need foriegn oil but truly what is wrong with burning up their oil and keeping ours in reserve?
IMHO