Iraq War Will Cost 2 Trillion (with a "t") dollars.

[mrhnau]

It's pretty hard to see these things while sitting at your computer...

You are absolutely and 100% wrong on this. Certain people in the US don't want to see poor and homeless people. They don't want to see the shanty towns right outside their McMansions. They don't want to see it because they don't want to know that it exists. The press won't put this on camera.

I could show you where these things are. I could take you to places where people starve and freeze to death in the richest country in the world.

I know where the poor are too. Its not exclusive to you. I've worked with alot of the poor in the past. They were there before this war, they are going to be there after. Will you blame the Democrats if the war ends, taxes on the rich are increased and the Dems get a president in office? I'll be waiting to hear you complain. The poor will still be there, will your complaints?

Cutting social services and shifting the cost of government away from the rich surely puts some financial stress on the poor.

cutting waste is going to put stress on the poor? encouraging able bodies poor that are not working to get off the government nipple is going to be bad?

]
Didn't someone make the point above that the amount of people in poverty has risen in the last few years...this happened despite the positive economic news and despite the fact that certain individuals are making money hand over fist.

How are those individuals making money? are they not -employing- people? what do they do with that money? are they not spending it and investing it? If I recall our definition of poverty, its changed in recent years. I'd have to look that up when I have more time (some of us have to work to support those poor people )

The cost of the war and who will pay for it are one discussion. This administration and the GOP expects the poor (and the middle class - jdinca) to pay both bills...the financial and the butchers. I find it infuriatingly ironic that the people who are pushing this legislation did everything they could to not have to face an enemy down for this country and are not sacrificing their own sons and daughters for an effort that will most likely net many in their ranks, billions of dollars.

who pays the majority of the taxes? who will continue to pay the majority of the taxes? Are you implying that the poor are paying the bulk of the taxes in the country? I find your term "butchers" rather crass, in poor taste and rude. If I were in the military I'd be quite upset.

There are very few analogies that can be drawn between the Iraq War and WWII.

Both nations were involved in a prior war (WW1, 1991 invasion of Iraq)
Both nations violated sanctions and post-war requirements on the development of arms. Germany was able to fully develop its war machine. Iraq development was halted when inspection was prevented. Wouldn't have been nice if this was the case in Germany post WW1?
Both nations were implementing genocide.
Both nations invaded neighbouring countries.

With the actual war itself, I imagine the analogies are fewer. We have had dramatically fewer casualties. We have had far fewer supporters as a whole. With WW2, the whole nation understood what happened and jumped into action. We had our analogy to Pearl Harbor, but many people decided not to jump to action (more support for Afghanistan admittedly). Its costed more I suppose, but I'd like to see numbers for that in 1940's adjusted dollars. With WW2 we had a more discreet enemy, and we had a final conclusion in which we could state the war was finished. with Iraq we have people hiding in civilian clothing running around blowing up their neighbors. Thats something new.

This war will certainly stimulate the economy. Once Iraq and other oil rich nations are secured and stabilized with friendly governments, our oil glut will be satiated for a little while longer...

So what war WOULD you support? Can you ever come to support a war? for any purpose? If we go to Africa, think we would want diamonds, or the diamon/gold lobby would make it happen? Someone would get rich right? so it would be evil? How about Asia or Europe? I'm sure they have some kind of resources we want. Lets go to war in Antartica, since I can't think of anything we might possibly want there.

Would you support a war that helps insure freedom? How about freeing people? How about the poor people of Iraq that can come out of the poverty imposed by Saddam? How about stopping genocide? How about enforcing UN inspections/sanctions? How about if a country starts shooting at our planes on a weekly basis?

With regard to oil, its something we currently need. I'm sorry, but thats fact. Would you rather the oil proceeds be gobbled up for palaces for Saddam or for the people of Iraq?

Surely you don't think that the UN would endorse a war, since Russian, France and Germany were on the take on the "oil for food" program and all have veto rights? I think the veto process for the UN needs to be examined.

 

[jdinca]

You aren't getting tired of comparing a War of Choice and Aggression to a War against Aggression? As I recall, by the time the United States got directly invovled in World War II, the German Blitzkrieg had over-run most of continental Europe. And ... I don't think the United States had been told, on December 6th, that the war would have a defined cost, that Germany would be able to pay for its own reconstruction.

But, some just love to point out that now, 60 years after World War II, Germany is a 'thriving democracy', obviously alluding to a similar goal for Iraq. I heard on the news this morning, the puppet leader of Germany has scheduled her audience with the President. After the recent election, there was some negotiations required to determine who was the appropriate puppet. Chancellor Merkel will be in Washington to pay homage.

And, by the way, when did our military finally come home from Germany?

Puppet leader of Germany, nice. I assume that Schroeder opposing the US on just about everything during his term was just a ruse? The next thing you'll be saying is that Chirac is Bush's lackey and walks his dog for him when he comes to visit. I assume you also think the President of Iran is just joshin' to help Bush build support for Israel? :uhyeah:

Yes, there is still military in Germany but they are not an occupying force. I assume that you want to close that base and "bring the boys home". How about we bring home the 36,000 sitting in the North Korean border? They've been there since the Korean war. Let's close the bases in the Phillipines too, Japan even. They've been there since WW II. How about we close them all and let the world fend for itself.

In all seriousness Mike, do you think maybe you need to rethink the comment about Germany, or do you really feel that way? Based on this post and others you seem to be antilmilitary. Would you like to close all of our overseas bases, or do you see a benefit for them being there?

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, there is still military in Germany but they are not an occupying force. I assume that you want to close that base and "bring the boys home". How about we bring home the 36,000 sitting in the North Korean border? They've been there since the Korean war. Let's close the bases in the Phillipines too, Japan even. They've been there since WW II. How about we close them all and let the world fend for itself.

In all seriousness Mike, do you think maybe you need to rethink the comment about Germany, or do you really feel that way? Based on this post and others you seem to be antilmilitary. Would you like to close all of our overseas bases, or do you see a benefit for them being there?

I just love the 'In all seriousness' phrase ... because your post seems to be based not very much in seriousness.

I do feel that both Japan and Germany are client states to the Empire of the United States (there are others). I would much rather live in a Republic.

If the United States were to ever find itself reverting to the idea of a Republic, upon which it was founded, all forward deployments would cease.

To assume that closing military bases is somehow 'anti-military' is not a logical argument. Specifically it is a non-sequitur; it does not follow that not-supporting 'forward deployment' is 'anti-military'.

My position on the military is that it is required. The United States military should be much smaller than it is now, in terms of population, budget and equipment. I should be prepared to defend the geographic territorial interests of the United States, not economic interests of the United States.

 

[mrhnau]

I do feel that both Japan and Germany are client states to the Empire of the United States (there are others). I would much rather live in a Republic.

I prefer a Democratic Republic. So, on what basis do you assume Japan and Germany are client states. Proof please? If someone agrees on a policy, does that make them "client states"? England agrees with much of what we do. Are they clients too? We have decent relationships with alot of countries. Do they only become clients if we beat them at war? Or if we have a base there? Will Romania become a client once we get the base built there? How about Korea? Kuwait?

If the United States were to ever find itself reverting to the idea of a Republic, upon which it was founded, all forward deployments would cease.

My position on the military is that it is required. The United States military should be much smaller than it is now, in terms of population, budget and equipment. I should be prepared to defend the geographic territorial interests of the United States, not economic interests of the United States.

What does being a Republic have to do with forward deployment of the military? Whats the logical connection? Your statement about the military being "required" sounds like you were crying when you stated that... much like you "having" to go to the doctor to get shots when you were a kid. You hate it, but realize its needed or perhaps you have no choice. Perhaps I am wrong? If so, please correct and I'll retract.

So, you are opposed to absolutely every war with the exception of the Civil War (not sure if you liked that one) and I -guess- the Revolutionary War. Spanish-American perhaps? Whats your policy for our country being attacked? We sit back and let the invader toss grenades over our border as long as they don't cross the boarder? Was retaliation against Germany ok since the Japanese ally attacked Pearl Harbor? If we find out that Mexico is massing troops and arms to retake Texas, would be ok to attack Mexico?

Like it or not, we live in a global economy. If England were to be invaded by Germany, it would very much hurt our economy. If Japan were to go belly up, it would hurt our economy. If Saudi Arabia were to run out of oil, it would hurt our economy. We have developed a dependance on other countries. We can't supply ourselves with certain resources internally. So, if you want a stable US, you need stable economic interests. Hiding behind state border will do nothing but hurt our economy and in the long run disable us as a world power. From the general gist of your statements, thats what you want, isn't it? The US to be on equal footing with Germany, France and other European countries with regards to military and economic power?

 

[jdinca]

I just love the 'In all seriousness' phrase ... because your post seems to be based not very much in seriousness.

I do feel that both Japan and Germany are client states to the Empire of the United States (there are others). I would much rather live in a Republic.

If the United States were to ever find itself reverting to the idea of a Republic, upon which it was founded, all forward deployments would cease.

To assume that closing military bases is somehow 'anti-military' is not a logical argument. Specifically it is a non-sequitur; it does not follow that not-supporting 'forward deployment' is 'anti-military'.

My position on the military is that it is required. The United States military should be much smaller than it is now, in terms of population, budget and equipment. I should be prepared to defend the geographic territorial interests of the United States, not economic interests of the United States.

"In all seriousness" was intentional. The other comments were tongue in cheek but this is a two dimensional medium and sometimes things are taken the wrong way.

What do you think would happen in the world if we were to pull back all of our forward deployments? I think that other countries need to step up and do more to take care of themselves but I see pulling all of our forces back would be hugely detrimental to our country.

You're one of the few people I know that know we are a Republic and not a true Democracy.

 

[michaeledward]

There are an awful lot of questions in that post ... I am wondering how many of them are just rhetorical, because you don't agree with what I am saying.

Simply put ... and also an answer to jdnica's post, ...

Being a Republic would mean that our business would be turned toward ourselves. Comparitively, the current United States Empire seems to be interested in everyone else's business.

And ... concerning our military.... Yes, we need to have a military. Yes, I support having a military. Yes, I want the military properly equipped and properly trained. But, there is no reason it can not be much smaller than it currently is, focused on defending the territorial integrity of the United States and requiring a much, much smaller portion of the federal budget.

A local right-wing talk-jock talks often about how the federal government used to take about 3% taxes from his father, and now, he claims it takes about 50%. What he doesn't say, is that difference is made up of military spending. He wants everyone to believe it is the Great Society programs, but, looking at the numbers shows that it is military spending that the cause of todays taxes.

 

[Makalakumu]

I know where the poor are too. Its not exclusive to you. I've worked with alot of the poor in the past. They were there before this war, they are going to be there after.

That may be true, but they shouldn't starve or freeze to death in the richest country in the world.

Will you blame the Democrats if the war ends, taxes on the rich are increased and the Dems get a president in office? I'll be waiting to hear you complain.

Why would I blame anyone for the above? Why should I complain? I think we should end this war and increase taxes on the rich to pay for it.

The poor will still be there, will your complaints?

Depends on the situation.

Cutting waste is going to put stress on the poor? encouraging able bodies poor that are not working to get off the government nipple is going to be bad?

So, Head Start is waste? Student Loans are waste? Health Care for the poorest and old is wasted? Do you have any idea what the GOP budget actually wants to cut? Probably not, I'm assuming from your comments...

How are those individuals making money? are they not -employing- people? What do they do with that money? are they not spending it and investing it?

The fabled fantasy of trickle down economics is (again) not happening. The rich stockholders who are making a killing in today's economy aren't reinvesting in jobs in the US.

Who pays the majority of the taxes? who will continue to pay the majority of the taxes?

Who deserves to pay the majority of the taxes?

I find your term "butchers" rather crass, in poor taste and rude. If I were in the military I'd be quite upset.

The "butcher's bill" is a military term...

So what war WOULD you support? Can you ever come to support a war? for any purpose?

Yes, I could, but it depends on the situation. Wars that are based off of lies and that are predicated on short sighted agendas of consumption are never going to get support from me.

Would you support a war that helps insure freedom? How about freeing people?

I think these are worthy causes, however, the current war in Iraq was never designed to do these things. There is a different purpose and all one has to do to find out that purpose is read the papers of the people who designed the war.

How about the poor people of Iraq that can come out of the poverty imposed by Saddam?

The people of Iraq were not poor and were actually pretty well off before the Iran/Iraq war. It was the US who urged Saddam to invade Iran and it was the US that gave Saddam, the weapons, technology, and money that he needed to perpetrate the war that made the Iraqi's poor. Of course, we also armed the other side too, increasing the death and destruction in the area and increasing the amount of poor in both countries. We made sure Saddam had the chemicals he needed for weapons and we looked the other way when he used them.

How about stopping genocide?

Saddam did not commit genocide.

How about enforcing UN inspections/sanctions? How about if a country starts shooting at our planes on a weekly basis?

Would you shoot at a plane that was shooting at you?

With regard to oil, its something we currently need. I'm sorry, but thats fact. Would you rather the oil proceeds be gobbled up for palaces for Saddam or for the people of Iraq?

We could have a policy in this country that could ween us off of oil in a decade or two. Are you sure that the Iraqi oil proceeds will go to the Iraqi people?

Surely you don't think that the UN would endorse a war, since Russian, France and Germany were on the take on the "oil for food" program and all have veto rights? I think the veto process for the UN needs to be examined.

I don't think the UN would have endorsed this war because once the inspectors (remember those?) found out that the reasons that our President wanted to take the world to it were bogus, no one would have voted for it.

 

[jdinca]

A local right-wing talk-jock talks often about how the federal government used to take about 3% taxes from his father, and now, he claims it takes about 50%. What he doesn't say, is that difference is made up of military spending. He wants everyone to believe it is the Great Society programs, but, looking at the numbers shows that it is military spending that the cause of todays taxes.

Gotta disagree (surprise!). The DoD budget for FY 2005 was 490 billion dollars. That includes the Iraq/Afghanistan supplement. The budget for SS was 585 billion and Medicare was 483 billion. The two combined are more than twice the military budget. DoD spending is part of the "discretionary" budget, which is only about 1/3 of the total. The military budget has increased 42% over the last five years, Medicare/Medicaid has increased 46%. Your hypothesis doesn't jive with the numbers.

Edit: Something I left out. The military had 1.8 million active members in November of 1993. It had 1.4 million as of November 2005, a decrease of 400,000 which equates to a decrease of 22%. Add to that the dozens of base closures and you have a military that is doing just what you want it to do, getting smaller.

 

[michaeledward]

Social Security Is Not Part Of The Federal Budget !!!!



And .. .please add to your estimate of the Department of Defense budget these other war related activites ..

Current Military, $558B:
Military Personnel $109B,
Operation and Maintenance $154B,
Procurement $81B,
Research and Development $68B,
Construction $7B,
Family Housing $4B,
Retired Pay $46B,
DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B,
NASA (50%) $8B,
International Security $8B,
Homeland Sec. (50%) $16B,
Ex. Off. Pres. $78,
Misc. $4B,
“Allowance for Anticipated Supplemental” (Iraq) $25B

UNBUDGETTED: $85B (est.):
Most of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not included in the President’s Budget but the Administration has announced it will seek this money as supplemental appropriations later in year as it has in the past two years

Past Military, $384B:
Veterans’ Benefits $70B;
Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $314B


Edit : Global Security places current United States military strength at 2,923,000 Active, Guard, Select Reserve, and civilian for FY'05.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm

 

[jdinca]

Call it what you want but it all has to be taken into account. This from the CBO:

Regardless of how any federal program is financed and accounted for--and whether it is presented as on- or off-budget--a full understanding of the government's looming fiscal strains and the potential economic impact of its fiscal condition requires that all government functions be considered together. It is the federal government's total claims on the nation's resources that affect the economy, not the individual components that make up those claims.

What you are talking about is the 1/3 of the federal budget that is discretionary spending, while ignoring the other 2/3 of the budget. Tax revenues and spending are far greater than the 858 billion that you're talking about and ignoring the nondiscretionary spending skews the facts.

In 2005, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 8.4% of GDP. Defense spending was 4%. The money for all of these things comes from taxes, period. I didn't pull these out of a vacuum, these are CBO numbers. Say what you want but the only way to make your original statement factual is to ignore 2/3 of federal spending.

With that, I'm done with this thread. I'm going back to Martial Arts. Somehow though, I don't think it will be the end of our debates. :duel:

 

[michaeledward]

Bye.

 

[michaeledward]

An opportunity to see if the investment in Iraq will pay dividends for the United States has, sadly, arisen.

Sheikh Jabar Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah has died.

Sheikh Jabar was the leader of Kuwait for the last 28 years. He has been a supporter of the United States policies for much of that time. He has been a supporter of womens rights.

The crown prince, Sheikh Sadd Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah, will assume leadership of the country.

Watching the political direction of Kuwait over the next year or two will be beneficial. Will the country turn toward, or away from, the democratic principles being promoted in the middle east?