Kneel in submission now before it's too late.
Posted on 08/05/2007 11:27:15 PM PDT by John Farson
I wonder how much of this figure includes the “reconstruction” - which is partially due, not to our bombing and military action, but to Saddam’s ignoring infrastructure needs (like power plants & water treatment)?
I personally believe that the cost for Iraq’s reconstruction should come from IRAQ, not US taxpayers. Iraq is sitting on trillions of dollars in oil - this should go towards their own rebuilding and reconstruction - and to repay the American taxpayers for their rebuilding.
And no, I am not suggesting they pay us back for the military campaign against terror -
The 50-60 billion was referring to the initial effort to take over the country.
“We didn’t use overwhelming force or take decisive control of the country either.”
Sure we did. We bombed the heck outta them and overran every position they had.
And then we started prosecuting marines for shooting them.
Iran is about to crumble from within, and the Great Satan's perch next door in Iraq was certainly not on the Mullah's wish list of things Allah could bequeath to them, prior to the Iraq invasion. China's emergence is a result of the embrace of a quasi-capitalist economic expansion, and has thus neutered its belligerent bent by making most of its potential enemies customers. Whatever they are, it is not because we took out Iraq.
Talabani has signed agreements to buy weapons and cooperate economically with China.
And why shouldn't they? The premise of the article you posted was that this war is too costly. I simply pointed out some possible positive outcomes. What you point out is not only not necessarily negative, but it is questionable that either assertion is a result of the Iraq war. Would having Saddam still in power make for a better world?
Not anymore... and neither are you... and you are wrong! Is harry reid a Conservative... you sound just like him, and those on the du and kos!
LLS
“You all will recall President George W Bush’s saying shortly after the attacks of 9/11/2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.””
Comparing that statement to spending a trillion dollars in Iraq as equal binary choices is a false assumption.
We don’t have to spend a trillion dollars in Iraq. We could spend it in Afganistan or New York as alternative options.
Most of that money is spent in the US. It pays for trucks, armor, bullets, medical care, and salaries for the military.
Either you are a friend of America in this battle or you are against us. Remaining neutral means you want to business and take bribes from people like Saddam. Kinda like France, Germany and Russia did during the years prior to the current war.
And what would be the cost of another 9-11?????
You know - that was what "Shock and Awe" was suppose to be... But in reality, there was very little shock, and pretty much no "awe". The resistance is far stronger now than the first few weeks of the war.
Foot - had we gone in with REAL power and authority, we would be simply finishing up the touches to the power grid, and be nearly ready to bring our last few troops home (other than those who would be setting up the permanent bases there).
But when you try to fight a PC war (no such thing), then you get bogged down. Add to that, we are trying to trust folks who have time and time again proven that they are not trustworthy....
Good point on opportunity cost...if Opportunity Cost would be used in making decisions we would be much better off!
Should be applied to Welfare, War on Poverty, War on Drugs and all related Gov. programs and policies!
“Worth every penny.”
Only if the Dems don’t get us out of there before the mission is finished. Otherwise Iraqi terrorism will be at least as big of a threat as it was before the war and we will have wasted money and lives. Not that they care.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Have you ever heard of ‘Salmon Pak’? I guess you are one of those who believe that AQ was every where BUT Iraz.
I remember before the war there was an army general who said, we don’t solve problems, we overwhelm them. I wonder if he was fired.
Why would you make an out-of-the blue, insulting comment like this? Incredible.
What’s the cost of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?
F’ing morons at the Globe. The report was for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Worth every penny.”
Waste of taxpayer money.
We should have used neutron bombs to kill all inhabitants then secured the oil fields. It would have been quicker, more humane and best of all cheaper. We’d be on our way back to $2.00 per gallon gas instead of pissing billions and billions of taxpayers money rebuilding a country for a bunch of unappreciative whining cavemen.
Kneel in submission now before it's too late.
Okay Cletus... we know you passed a class in appliance repair... your a scholar Cletus... your a scholar.
“Does that mean anyone who opposes Bush’s domestic surveillance programs, his undeclared war against Iraq, his imprisonment of American and foreign terrorism suspects without charges, or his administration’s bungled immigration proposals is siding with the terrorists? “
Yes and delusional.... black helicopters bugging you? At least you can spell “T-I-N F-O-I-L”
I presume you are referring to the monitoring of calls into the USA from known or suspected terrorists and calls outbound from the USA to known or suspected terrorists?
You do know that the rewrite of the FISA that specifically ALLOWS for warrantless surveillance was passed just two days ago on August 4th that Wikipedia (not exactly conservative friendly) describes as follows:
“...the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls and other communication originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if the terminus of that communication lies within the U.S...”
The Libs, who are practicing politics with this issue, screamed in outrage to the media at the horrible, terrible DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM! Then they went and approved the rewrite to allow for warrantless wiretapping if the above conditions are met. The Donks took part in the legislative process and approved (along with the Republicans) the legislation with zero fanfare. There was very little media coverage of their change of heart or lack of outrage at its passing.
Now, John Farson, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that it is the RIGHT thing to do and may actually SAVE lives and PREVENT terrorist attacks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.