Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 11, 2007, 01:44:57 PM
-
Thoughts?
-
What do you mean?
-
Monetarily, yes.
iraq has between 50 and 75 trillion dollar in market value oil, depending on the price. The US now admits we are taking that oil and less-than-market-value.
This is called stealing. If you walk into a car dealership with an AK47 and tell the man you'll give him $8,000 for a $50,000 Cadillac, then drive away in it, you have stolen.
But if we don't do it, China and Russia will. They just made a nice little deal with iran, which means it'll be harder for the US to invade Iran without giving China the excuse it's looking for to get ugly...
-
Well so far it's cost 3000 lives, 20,000 sounded and about 400 billion.
Chances are we will be there at least another 1 and 1/2 years. add another 100 billion or so, 750 US lives, we will 500 billion in debt, 500, billion that will weigh on building new schools, medical research, new technologies, etc... plus the debt all for a "saddam free" Iraq.
-
Well so far it's cost 3000 lives, 20,000 sounded and about 400 billion.
Chances are we will be there at least another 1 and 1/2 years. add another 100 billion or so, 750 US lives, we will 500 billion in debt, 500, billion that will weigh on building new schools, medical research, new technologies, etc... plus the debt all for a "saddam free" Iraq.
total cost with health care will be 7 years, 2 trillion dollars and 4000 men.
Would any govt in the world trade that for $50+ TRILLION in oil? Yes.
(And it's worth more because China would grow like crazy if it's buddy Iran scooted in and took control. By slowing China's growth, we gain immeasurably from it).
So it's worth it from a util. standpoint. Not worth it if you bleed out from an IED attack in Baghdad though.
-
Well so far it's cost 3000 lives, 20,000 sounded and about 400 billion.
Chances are we will be there at least another 1 and 1/2 years. add another 100 billion or so, 750 US lives, we will 500 billion in debt, 500, billion that will weigh on building new schools, medical research, new technologies, etc... plus the debt all for a "saddam free" Iraq.
If you're asking whether the war is worth the cost of 3,000 American lives, I don't think that's a fair question. No conflict is worth a single American life. I couldn't imagine anyone (other than military personnel) analyzing the success or failure of a conflict in this way.
I also don't think you say that the money spent on the war would have been spent on schools, etc. Our government is all about pork barrel spending. I imagine the money would have gone to various pet projects. It sure as heck wouldn't have been returned to me (even though it's my money).
-
If you're asking whether the war is worth the cost of 3,000 American lives, I don't think that's a fair question. No conflict is worth a single American life. I couldn't imagine anyone (other than military personnel) analyzing the success or failure of a conflict in this way.
that right there, is why we should have never went in Iraq.
I also don't think you say that the money spent on the war would have been spent on schools, etc. Our government is all about pork barrel spending. I imagine the money would have gone to various pet projects. It sure as heck wouldn't have been returned to me (even though it's my money).
Our ability to spend money in these areas won't be influenced by the 500 billion debt?
-
that right there, is why we should have never went in Iraq.
Our ability to spend money in these areas won't be influenced by the 500 billion debt?
Would your opinion be different if we found the stash of WMDs that Saddam previously had and that we went in to find? We'd still have 3,000 dead service members. Would the loss of 3,000 Americans then be worth it?
Yes debt affects how we spend money on all areas of government. I'm just saying it is not fair to say 500 billion (or any of that money) would have been spent on education. We really don't know and the government isn't a very good steward when it comes to money.
Education is the largest budget item in state government over here and yet our public education system absolutely stinks. Money isn't the problem, it's how the money is being spent that's the problem. I suspect that is the problem when it comes to federal money too (re education).
-
No conflict is worth a single American life.
You're being incredibly naive here. 7000 Americans die daily. While your wax poetic bullshit might make you feel all flowery, it has no basis in the reality of how the nation is run.
I couldn't imagine anyone (other than military personnel) analyzing the success or failure of a conflict in this way.
Economists, politicians, and national planners too. IMO you're not conceptualizing the hugeness of managing all financial, educational, health care, utilities, food, housing, employment, defense, and long term sustainability infrastructure of 300,000,000 people.
I also don't think you say that the money spent on the war would have been spent on schools, etc. Our government is all about pork barrel spending. I imagine the money would have gone to various pet projects. It sure as heck wouldn't have been returned to me (even though it's my money).
Dude, the ROI of the $ spent on war is worth it to the US, long term. Sad but true.
-
Would your opinion be different if we found the stash of WMDs that Saddam previously had and that we went in to find? We'd still have 3,000 dead service members. Would the loss of 3,000 Americans then be worth it?
no, not at all. That's not the only place in the world that has a stash of WMD's of that nature, the difference is the situation in Iraq/world at the time gave us a level of control. Iran and NK likely have the same thing or nukes and we less leverage on them.
If we hadn't invaded iraq and Iran was still saying the things they were saying with nukes in there hands then it might be something to consider whether invading iran would be worth all that.
-
Iran and NK likely have the same thing or nukes and we less leverage on them.
NKorea blew one up in October 2006.
There is no doubt they have WMD.
-
no, not at all. That's not the only place in the world that has a stash of WMD's of that nature, the difference is the situation in Iraq/world at the time gave us a level of control. Iran and NK likely have the same thing or nukes and we less leverage on them.
If we hadn't invaded iraq and Iran was still saying the things they were saying with nukes in there hands then it might be something to consider whether invading iran would be worth all that.
Ozmo what I'm trying to get at is what you consider to be a worthy cause for the sacrifice of American lives. What about Afghanistan? Was that conflict worth the lives of our men and women who died there?
We don't have to agree. I just don't think I could ever look at a conflict and determine whether the conflict was a worthy one based on the number of lives we lost.
-
What about Afghanistan? Was that conflict worth the lives of our men and women who died there?
Can you put a $ amount on the strategic value of these bases?
Look at that location - look at the line along the paki border.
-
Isn't it a little early to be talking victory? It isn't a done deal yet.
Beyond Quagmire
A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print
-
Isn't it a little early to be talking victory? It isn't a done deal yet.
Beyond Quagmire
A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print
Also wrong to start talking defeat. The objectives included disarming and removing Saddam. Those objectives have been achieved. New government is in place. What's left is turning over complete control of the country back to Iraq. Whether we can do that without the country falling into a full scale civil war remains to be seen.
-
Also wrong to start talking defeat. The objectives included disarming and removing Saddam. Those objectives have been achieved. New government is in place. What's left is turning over complete control of the country back to Iraq. Whether we can do that without the country falling into a full scale civil war remains to be seen.
You still believe it's not a civil war?
-
You still believe it's not a civil war?
Try reading what I wrote again.
-
Try reading what I wrote again.
you believe it's a partial civil war but not a fullscale one?
can you clarify, or do you want to pull a bruce and make others re-read and try to guess your inference?
-
you believe it's a partial civil war but not a fullscale one?
can you clarify, or do you want to pull a bruce and make others re-read and try to guess your inference?
I'll make it simpler for you. Here is the pertinent sentence: "Whether we can do that without the country falling into a full scale civil war remains to be seen." (Emphasis added.) Obviously, the preceding statement indicates I do not believe there is a "full scale" civil war in Iraq.
-
So you believe it's only a partial civil war?
-
::)
-
::)
We all know what this is.
You agree with Bush admin there isn't a civil war. Despite the obvious constant violence.
So you take the "partial" dodge. Granted, you can't quantify that one bit. Nor can you give a line when it becomes an all-out full civil war. And, you don't possess the knowledge of our own civil war to see that only a small % of them were involved in the war and it was a'plenty a full scale war.
-
::) ::)
-
::) ::)
We all know what this is AGAIN.
You agree with Bush admin there isn't a civil war. Despite the obvious constant violence.
So you take the "partial" dodge. Granted, you can't quantify that one bit. Nor can you give a line when it becomes an all-out full civil war. And, you don't possess the knowledge of our own civil war to see that only a small % of them were involved in the war and it was a'plenty a full scale war.
-
::) ::) ::)
-
You know, I wish the generals would pull rank and just bring the soldiers back home. Just disregard the President. Deal with the flames later on and just resign. It would probably be the first time in American History that a mass disregard for the Commander in Chief would be implemented. But who wuold you the President indict
Hell the Pres never went to Congress for permission to go to war, no President has since Truman. So...
-
Ozmo what I'm trying to get at is what you consider to be a worthy cause for the sacrifice of American lives. What about Afghanistan? Was that conflict worth the lives of our men and women who died there?
We don't have to agree. I just don't think I could ever look at a conflict and determine whether the conflict was a worthy one based on the number of lives we lost.
another thing is, what if we lose?
-
wasn't it last week that a number of generals said they would resign if Bush invaded Iran?
-
another thing is, what if we lose?
Lose what? What were our objectives going into the war and what have we accomplished?
There has been a lot of revisionist history going on with this war discussion (in the country in general).
-
We met every one of Bush's pre-war goals.
WMD, saddam, and democracy.
Now it's goal #4, finding peace between warring factions.
And #5, the oil...
-
Lose what? What were our objectives going into the war and what have we accomplished?
There has been a lot of revisionist history going on with this war discussion (in the country in general).
If we leave and an unfriendly government takes over, we have lost. And all those people that died will have died for nothing.
we did meet the invasion objectives....that's about all. in turn we have created a mess that makes a solution hard to find.
-
If we leave and an unfriendly government takes over, we have lost. And all those people that died will have died for nothing.
we did meet the invasion objectives....that's about all. in turn we have created a mess that makes a solution hard to find.
I disagree. If we leave and a Saddam replica takes over, with either WMDs or goals to obtain them, along with all of the attributes of Saddam, then I think we will arguably have lost. I doubt that happens. Saddam was unique.
If we have met the invasion objections, that sounds like winning to me. Definitely not "losing." What we have done is fail to properly plan for and carry out our post-invasion objectives.
-
I disagree. If we leave and a Saddam replica takes over, with either WMDs or goals to obtain them, along with all of the attributes of Saddam, then I think we will arguably have lost. I doubt that happens. Saddam was unique.
If we have met the invasion objections, that sounds like winning to me. Definitely not "losing." What we have done is fail to properly plan for and carry out our post-invasion objectives.
Then qualifying what winning is, is another discussion.
If an unfriendly government that has the same attitudes as Iran towards the US? what would you think about that?
-
Then qualifying what winning is, is another discussion.
If an unfriendly government that has the same attitudes as Iran towards the US? what would you think about that?
I'm not sure. I don't think we necessarily need to have a "friendly" government take over. The entire middle east hates us. Even our friends over there hate us. I'll be happy if we don't have a dictator take over with the history, desire, and means to attack other countries or support terrorism.
-
al maliki hates us. he came to DC and talked shit last year.
But, he is playing ball by agreeing to sell oil only to US firms at a discount. So his ass stays in power.
Interestingly, the cat we put into afghanistan - karzai - was a former Unocal oil executive.
We're never leaving Iraq by the way - they'll become more independent but we'll always have thousands on their soil. Those large US bases can't go to waste.