The more-than-$2-trillion war

[Tyrant]

Two scholars, one a Nobel Prize winner, revisit their estimate of the true cost of the Iraq war – and find that $2 trillion was too low. They consider not only the current and future budgetary costs, but the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East.

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00138

And what have the US taxpayers really gotten back from this military misadventure?

 

[Ogami]

The lives of American soldiers, which have been lost at a far smaller rate than in any large-scale war in this country's history, are worth every penny.

Messenger, you go right ahead and tell us how you think the lives of American (and British) soldiers aren't worth $2 trillion dollars. We could have fought the war cheaper, and filled those 50,000 soldier bodybags the Democrats predicted Bush would fill.

But I guess you'll have to deal with that disappointment.

"I have had discussions with a number of military men. They say there are a range of possibilities. If the Iraqi army collapses at the first blow, casualties may be as few as a couple of hundred, maybe 500 at the most. But if they dig in and defend the major cities, if they fight house to house, if they take off their uniforms and merge with the civilian population, casualties can easily reach 50,000 or even 100,000 Americans and 250,000 or more Iraqis. Baghdad is a large city. Not as big as Los Angeles, but bigger than Denver. No democratic decision can be made on this issue if these potentialities are not part of the discussion."

-- Gary Hart, October 2, 2002

 

[Tyrant]

The article is meant to illustrate how much this pointless war has cost in terms of everything, not just armor and bullets.

You're deluded beyond reason.

 

[Panda]

Messenger, you go right ahead and tell us how you think the lives of American (and British) soldiers aren't worth $2 trillion dollars. We could have fought the war cheaper,

one single life is worth far more than $2 trillion

 

[Sarek]

The lives of American soldiers, which have been lost at a far smaller rate than in any large-scale war in this country's history, are worth every penny.

I always thought that human life was priceless. It's nice to know the Republicans have finally figured out a dollar amount to assign to it.

 

[Ogami]

Sarek, you're retired military. Are you saying we should have spent less on any war? What would we cut? Medical supplies? Ammunition? Body armor? Uparmored vehicles? Maybe training? Or money to rebuild schools, power stations, water supplies, hospitals, etc.?

This argument-by-bumper-sticker isn't working for you or messenger. Tell us how you'd save money on fighting. Maybe we should have pumped out all of Iraq's oil and given it to Halliburton? But that's what your side predicted Bush would do, and he didn't!

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

You've willfully ignorant. This was posted under the idea that the entire war was pointless. My argument is better, because not only would we have the money, but their lives as well.

Moron.

 

[Sarek]

Sarek, you're retired military. Are you saying we should have spent less on any war? What would we cut? Medical supplies? Ammunition? Body armor? Uparmored vehicles? Maybe training? Or money to rebuild schools, power stations, water supplies, hospitals, etc.?

It wouldn't be an issue if we weren't involved in a war we shouldn't be in to begin with. And the the troops were sent with inadequate armor, vehicle plating, medical supplies and inadequate training for the conditions in Iraq while the Republicans have cut funding to schools, power stations, environmental issues and medical anyway.

The last part of your statement was just stupid. I forgive you.

 

[Ogami]

Messenger wrote:

You've willfully ignorant. This was posted under the idea that the entire war was pointless. My argument is better, because not only would we have the money, but their lives as well. Moron.

I'm not a moron. Today we have Iran seeking nuclear arms. If you, Messenger, had your way, today we would have Iran and Iraq BOTH seeking nuclear arms. Saddam Hussein no longer has that option, we took it away from him. Assuming he ever wanted nuclear WMD.

Messenger, you're not off the hook yet: Let's assume Saddam Hussein never wanted a nuclear weapon before he was deposed in 2003. Today, with Iran seeking to create a nuclear arsenal, would Saddam Hussein be content to sit there and watch them, or want his own? What's your answer? Do you have one beyond a personal insult? I don't think so, and that makes me smile.

The $2 trillion was money well spent, worth every penny.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

I'm not a moron.

Maybe, but it's getting harder to believe this when I read on:

Today we have Iran seeking nuclear arms.

There is no indication that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. None. Every single probe and agency inspecting Iran has turned up with nothing but a genuine attempt to develop nuclear energy.


Iran even offered that the USA construct and manage the nuclear power plant.

Because they are white, Christian, well-shaved and 'cleaner' are the White House spokesmen more readily believed. This entire Iran and the bomb issue is even being discussed because the mere suspicion (Or lie, whatever you prefer) has been repeated so much for the fools starting into their televisions that they'll believe anything.

If you, Messenger, had your way, today we would have Iran and Iraq BOTH seeking nuclear arms.

No. Since this is vague, I'd like elaboration.

And what exactly would be the problem with another sovereign nation having a nuclear weapon if others are? Dirty Persians who worship a God that tells them to cut heads off (See: Spanish Inquisition) would turn around and give it to terrorists? Ha. Why are they even permitted to have an Air Force? Perhaps they'll give that to the boogeymen terrorists as well?

No, the main reason we don't want a nuclear Iran is because that would make it impossible to invade it. The bomb also represents a political power. It's the great equalizer, and makes poorer nations more able to defend themselves by removing the possibility of military invasion. Furthermore, why is Pakistan permitted to have a nuclear bomb? Also Muslim, and Islamofascism (ROFL) is the new Communism, right?

Saddam Hussein no longer has that option, we took it away from him. Assuming he ever wanted nuclear WMD.

Saddam's threat was horribly overblown. The USA has attempted to undermine Saddam's Iraq even before things started to go sour when they were told that the US has no interest in Arab conflicts. So he invaded Kuwait after they were slant drilling into Iraqi oil. And let's not forget the fake 'Babies torn from incubator' stories.

Messenger, you're not off the hook yet:

Oh?

Let's assume Saddam Hussein never wanted a nuclear weapon before he was deposed in 2003. Today, with Iran seeking to create a nuclear arsenal,

You can't state one way or another if it is, and since it's impossible to prove a negative, we'll have to put up with White House lies for the time being.

would Saddam Hussein be content to sit there and watch them, or want his own? What's your answer? Do you have one beyond a personal insult? I don't think so, and that makes me smile.

Raving lunatics also think things, and smile while doing it.

What possible reason would Iran need an atomic bomb for, and why would we even care, before the USA invaded Iraq? This example isn't realistic in the slightest because acquiring the bomb requires a multitude of factors to be taken into consideration. But I guess we don't have to, do we?

-Ogami

Twat.

 

[Tyrant]

The $2 trillion was money well spent, worth every penny.

Do you have any idea what economic troubles are in store for us?

 

[Ogami]

Messenger wrote:

There is no indication that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. None. Every single probe and agency inspecting Iran has turned up with nothing but a genuine attempt to develop nuclear energy.

So your argument is we should take Iran at their word, shouldn't we? Bush spoke clearly when he placed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in an axis of evil.

Because they are white, Christian, well-shaved and 'cleaner' are the White House spokesmen more readily believed.

???? No one will try and stop you, but understanding you may be the problem. I don't know if Tony Snow is cleaner than the Iranian president, what does that matter? I'm beginning to wonder if your posts are just a rib.

And what exactly would be the problem with another sovereign nation having a nuclear weapon if others are? Dirty Persians who worship a God that tells them to cut heads off (See: Spanish Inquisition) would turn around and give it to terrorists? Ha. Why are they even permitted to have an Air Force? Perhaps they'll give that to the boogeymen terrorists as well?

Watching Israel and Iran turn their respective countries into blackened glass is not something I'd care to see.

No, the main reason we don't want a nuclear Iran is because that would make it impossible to invade it. The bomb also represents a political power.

This was the precise message Bill Clinton sent to every dictator in the world when he bombed Serbia with impunity for two solid months. He wouldn't do that with someone with nukes. Slobodan, the most feared man in the region, was powerless in the face of a superpower. Humiliated, he was driven from power. That is a fate no dictator wants to share, no mullahs, either. It's natural that rogue states like Iran would seek out an equalizer, even if just for bluffing and posturing.

Saddam's threat was horribly overblown. The USA has attempted to undermine Saddam's Iraq even before things started to go sour when they were told that the US has no interest in Arab conflicts. So he invaded Kuwait after they were slant drilling into Iraqi oil. And let's not forget the fake 'Babies torn from incubator' stories.

It's telling that you 1) automatically believe any claim made by Saddam Hussein's Iraq i.e the slant drilling claim, yet you 2) automatically disbelieve any claim made by Kuwait. Why is that? Shouldn't you be equally suspicious of both sides? Why does Saddam get a free pass by you? Kuwait didn't conquer Iraq, yet you automatically take Saddam's side. Interesting choice you made there.

Raving lunatics also think things, and smile while doing it.

We already know that in 2006 Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, despite their protests to the contrary. It's a simple enough thought exercise for you, Messenger, to ask yourself whether a reigning Saddam Hussein would sit there and do nothing as Iran enriched uranium, or would he want his own nuclear program?

I thought you'd be afraid to answer that, because it doesn't fit in with your irrational Bush-hating. Thanks for proving me right.

What possible reason would Iran need an atomic bomb for, and why would we even care, before the USA invaded Iraq?

Haven't you said yourself because we invaded Iraq? A neighbor of Iran, imagine that, sharing a common border.

Just like Afghanistan, another country Iran shares a border with, a country that all involved say was a necessary step after 9/11.

Yet apparently in your view, which you have not thought out, Middle Eastern countries are only driven to desire nuclear weapons because of our invasion of Iraq, but not because of our invasion of Afghanistan. Crystal clear, Messenger.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

So your argument is we should take Iran at their word, shouldn't we?

No, that is not my argument but it's interesting that you. Is it your stance that nations should be accused of doing [x] with no evidence presented that they are doing it, that their word shouldn't be believed?

What would you like? Inspections? Because Iran has fully complied with them, something Iraq didn't do.

Bush spoke clearly when he placed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in an axis of evil.

A rare instance of him being intelligible, yes, but what does that have to do with it?

???? No one will try and stop you, but understanding you may be the problem. I don't know if Tony Snow is cleaner than the Iranian president, what does that matter?

Ok, why should we believe Bush over the President of Iran?

I'm beginning to wonder if your posts are just a rib.

No, you don't get that luxury. You've been extremely close-minded since you showed up (Something you know wish to claim of others here). You're ass has been consistently whipped when it comes to little things like 'facts' and reality, and now you attempt to assert some authority on their part. Remember your little meltdown? "Worship Bush" or something to that effect?

Watching Israel and Iran turn their respective countries into blackened glass is not something I'd care to see.

My taxes should fund this why?

This was the precise message Bill Clinton sent to every dictator in the world when he bombed Serbia with impunity for two solid months. He wouldn't do that with someone with nukes.

And Bush won't attack any nation which has nukes. China has been violating human rights for quite a while now, and on a much larger scale than Saddam dreamed of. Why isn't Bush after them? It's been stated that Saddam had to go regardless of whether or not he had WMDs. And if it weren't, why would we need to hear about the abuses in Iraq?

Slobodan, the most feared man in the region, was powerless in the face of a superpower. Humiliated, he was driven from power. That is a fate no dictator wants to share, no mullahs, either. It's natural that rogue states like Iran would seek out an equalizer, even if just for bluffing and posturing.

Ah, 'Rogue State.' Something I haven't read in a bit now.

Russia and China are getting along fine with Iran, and the EU is attempting to find a middle ground. Perhaps they are all rogue states as well?

It's telling that you 1) automatically believe any claim made by Saddam Hussein's Iraq i.e the slant drilling claim, yet you 2) automatically disbelieve any claim made by Kuwait.

Can we back up our claims?


Claim #4: One of our radio ads claims our government was told in advance by Hussein that he might invade Kuwait in 1990, but we did nothing to deter him. Can we support this claim?

This story is well established. It was widely reported by major newspapers, magazines, and TV networks at the time, but was rarely mentioned again after the first wave of publicity. Some of the details are also discussed in a number of books, including Iraq by Dilip Hiro and A World Transformed, by the former National Security Advisor under Bush, Sr., Brent Scowcroft.

Hussein had three problems with Kuwait:

• A border dispute dating back to Great Britain's artificial drawing of the lines after World War I.
• Kuwait was allegedly slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields and stealing its oil.
• Kuwait was violating its OPEC production agreements in order to drive down the price of oil and bankrupt Iraq.

This last point is interesting because it was essentially a strong-arm tactic Kuwait was using to win concessions from Iraq. Iraq was vulnerable to this tactic because it had borrowed money from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to wage war against Iran in the 1980s. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had loaned this money because they too were afraid of the revolutionary regime in Iran. The U.S., Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, were all complicit in the war against Iran, and all of them hoped to benefit from it. But now Kuwait was using the loans it had made to Iraq as leverage to win profitable concessions from Hussein with regard to the border dispute and their slant drilling. And Kuwait was turning up the heat by also violating its production agreement. This reduced oil prices generally, and Iraq's oil income in particular.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim4.shtml

Why is that? Shouldn't you be equally suspicious of both sides?

Except when Bush accuses Iran of wanting nukes. Then we only need be suspicious of the latter, don't we?

Why does Saddam get a free pass by you? Kuwait didn't conquer Iraq, yet you automatically take Saddam's side.

Don't burst into tears just yet... I point one instance out of Saddam's Iraq being wronged, and now I'm taking 'Saddam's side?'

Interesting choice you made there.

I made no choice such as the one you speak of. Is this more of your 'logic' ?

We already know that in 2006 Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, despite their protests to the contrary.

"But the fact that it's there is no question, where, we don't know, but we know they got it."

It's a simple enough thought exercise for you, Messenger, to ask yourself whether a reigning Saddam Hussein would sit there and do nothing as Iran enriched uranium, or would he want his own nuclear program?

You mean currently? IIRC your last scenario had Iran building bombs, and now it's energy? He would build bombs in response to their energy program? If the sanctions against Iraq were lifted, he'd have no need to build them under the excuse of building a power plant. Please clarify you're scenario.

I thought you'd be afraid to answer that, because it doesn't fit in with your irrational Bush-hating.

Afraid? I'm simply reluctant to entertain fantasy scenarios of a proven fool so as to reinforce his delusional and uninformed worldview in front of a groaning audience. But by all means, clarify your scenario.

Thanks for proving me right.

I find it amusing that you're suddenly concerned with 'proof,' 'logic,' this late in the game.

Bush-hating? I hate a lot of things. Bush hating is more like a joke about his latest insane verbal fuck-up.

What possible reason would Iran need an atomic bomb for, and why would we even care, before the USA invaded Iraq?

Haven't you said yourself because we invaded Iraq? A neighbor of Iran, imagine that, sharing a common border.

I'm asking you.

Just like Afghanistan, another country Iran shares a border with, a country that all involved say was a necessary step after 9/11.

The Taliban refused to build the pipeline for the US. Now it's being built. Spoils of war, eh?

Yet apparently in your view, which you have not thought out, Middle Eastern countries are only driven to desire nuclear weapons because of our invasion of Iraq, but not because of our invasion of Afghanistan. Crystal clear, Messenger.

No, kiddo, I said Iran might be interested in a clandestine nuclear program because of the invasion of Iraq, and because of the bellicose manner in which the US is behaving towards it. 'Rogue states,' enemies of Israel, all those 'bad guys' have gotten it in their heads that if they don't do something fast to stop the White House's goosestepping over their sovereignty, they won't be around much longer. Iran has played a supurb game of international chess, and has made the USA look like a bully.

That enough 'contribution' for you, bucko?

 

[Ogami]

LOL You let me know how Hitler's claim on the Sudetenland land is working. No one made that claim of slant drilling but Saddam Hussein's government, and it was apparently just a baseless pretext to go to war.

You know, the sort of pretext your side perenially accuses Bush of.

The fact that millions of leftists worldwide accept Saddam's claims without scrutiny or skepticism, while applying rivers of skepticism about Bush or America, gives us a clear idea of where they are coming from. Bush didn't put the left on the side of the enemy, they chose that of their free will.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

Is that your final answer? I'm not seeing a lot from you in terms of discussion, just baseless accusations and tepid one-liners.

Oooh, I see. Let's get this up then in case you choose to wittle away a bit more:

LOL You let me know how Hitler's claim on the Sudetenland land is working. No one made that claim of slant drilling but Saddam Hussein's government, and it was apparently just a baseless pretext to go to war.

You know, the sort of pretext your side perenially accuses Bush of.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

Respond and address my points, or concede, failure.

 

[Ogami]

Your 'points' are that you parrot Saddam Hussein's propaganda that he used as a pretext to invade and conquer a neighboring country. And despite your mantra that there were no babies yanked out of incubators, our soldiers liberated Kuwait and found a populace that had been murdered and torture rooms set up to torture Kuwaitis to death to find their riches.

You've failed to explain why you believe anything Saddam Hussein tells you, yet you meet with extreme skepticism the claims of his enemies. I'd really like to know what Saddam Hussein has done to merit such trustworthiness in your eyes. Because nothing Saddam Hussein claimed has been proved anymore than the claims of another conqueror who made claim after claim on other people's land in Austria, Czechloslavakia, Poland, France, and who knows where else. (We stopped both dictators, by the way.)

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

Your 'points' are that you parrot Saddam Hussein's propaganda that he used as a pretext to invade and conquer a neighboring country.

Wrong. Not only was it not mere propaganda, but you've failed to address how I parrot it. Does citing facts which cast Saddam's Iraq in a favorable light amount to cheerleading?

And despite your mantra that there were no babies yanked out of incubators, our soldiers liberated Kuwait and found a populace that had been murdered and torture rooms set up to torture Kuwaitis to death to find their riches.

Quite possibly, although I'd like to see more about this myself, for my own edification. And what about my 'mantra' ? What would they have to do with the FAKE story disseminated to the American public for the purpose of sowing seeds of outrage about babies torn from incubators?

You've failed to explain why you believe anything Saddam Hussein tells you,

Probably because I never made such a statement.

yet you meet with extreme skepticism the claims of his enemies.

After six years of lies I take anything I'm told by the White House with a whole bucket of salt.

I'd really like to know what Saddam Hussein has done to merit such trustworthiness in your eyes.

He hasn't, as I've explained.

Because nothing Saddam Hussein claimed has been proved anymore than the claims of another conqueror who made claim after claim on other people's land in Austria, Czechloslavakia, Poland, France, and who knows where else. (We stopped both dictators, by the way.)

-Ogami

OOPS.

 

[Ogami]

Messenger wrote:

Wrong. Not only was it not mere propaganda, but you've failed to address how I parrot it. Does citing facts which cast Saddam's Iraq in a favorable light amount to cheerleading?

You haven't proven that Kuwait engaged in slant drilling! Saddam Hussein made the claim, leftist groups immediately adopted Saddam's position because... because they automatically side with anyone the United States is in opposition to. Simply citing the regurgitated propaganda of a proven liar like Saddam Hussein does not prove anything, Messenger.

Since you adopt the position of Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator who would tell any lie to achieve his ends, can you cite a single reputable news source to support this contention of slant drilling by Kuwait?

Until then, you are simply a dupe of Saddam Hussein, and apparently a willing dupe at that.

What would they have to do with the FAKE story disseminated to the American public for the purpose of sowing seeds of outrage about babies torn from incubators?

What post did I miss where you proved the incubator claim was false? 60 Minutes ran a long piece on how the source for that story was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family. But that doesn't automatically make it a lie, you made that leap. (Or rather, I recall leftist groups made that leap of faith a decade ago, and you simply repeat what they tell you to think about it.)

When the Kuwaitis retook their country and government, did they find expensive medical equipment such as incubators looted and shipped to Iraq? Most certainly. Were there babies in them when they were stolen? Were the babies placed in the Saddam Hussein orphanage in the meantime? Who knows.

But it's rather silly of you to automatically discount the real atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein in his loot, rape, and murder after conquering Kuwait, and then have the nerve to tell us that Saddam was justified anyway because you believe his claim of slant drilling.

Post the link, Messenger. Post the link to the CNN story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying. Post the link to the New York Times story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying. Post the link to the ABC News story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying. Post the link to the Washington Post story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying. Post the link to the BBC story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying. Post the link to the NBC News story that proves Saddam was right and Kuwait was lying.

Until you do, the burden of proof is on you to exonerate Saddam, and villify Kuwait for the crime of being conquered. LOL

Better hurry though, Saddam needs your help fast!!

-Ogami

 

[Sarek]