quote:Congress has provided about $21 billion for equipment costs in emergency supplemental budget bills from 2002-06. All the war equipment expenses have been funded through those emergency bills, and not in the regular fiscal-year budgets.
Pentagon officials have estimated that such emergency bills would have to continue two years beyond the time the U.S. pulls out of Iraq in order to fully replace, repair and rebuild all of the needed equipment.
The push for additional equipment funding comes after the House last week passed a $427 billion defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, which includes $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A separate $66 billion emergency funding bill for the two wars was approved earlier in the month.
War-related costs since 2001 are approaching half a trillion dollars.
Er. I know there are still people that think starting this war was a good idea, and I have to ask... why?
Just, why? We've now set up a massive Shiite bloc in the Middle East, rabidly hostile to the West, developing nuclear weapons and retaining control over most of the oil in the world. We've killed a couple thousand American soldiers, and more importantly, anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis (50,000 Iraqi dead being the population equivalent of 570,000 Americans dying over the past three years, according to the LA Times). We've more than bankrupted ourselves, overextended and exhausted our military, and left our coffers in dire straits for the many emergencies that seem destined to come our way in the coming years, not slightly thanks to increasing storm/flood activity and political polarization between the US and the rest of the world.
Why was this a good idea? More often than not, when listing the effects of the war, the people defending it are left to a last straw -- "well, then why do you think we started it? For oil?"
And I don't really know what to say. Why did we start this? It was an obvious (and effective) tool for manipulating the 2002 Senate elections for the Republican party, and it's more than possible Bush was trying to maintain the hushed awe and obedience the country gave him after 9/11 by creating more conflict, but as far as rational reasons the press can repeat? What are they? Why did we start this?
The thought of how much education we could have funded, or the economic growth that might have been, or the scientific research that could have cured how many diseases... It's sickening.
One of the major problems of the Republican party is its greatest strength, I think. Unity. Aside from Al Franken and Michael Moore's pathetic attempts, I don't see much in the way of liberal propaganda. I don't see talking points, I don't see entire channels devoted to telling audiences what they should care about, how they should feel, what they should say.
Sometimes, I think the Republican party needs its base to feel threatened, at all times, in order to maintain their feverish loyalty to the party line. Threatened by immigration, by terrorism, by rap, by secular humanism, by something, somewhere that's coming after them, their values, and their families. One particularly vivid example was Bill O'Reilly this past Christmas, conjuring up a "War on Christmas" by liberals.
Liberals are those immigrants, or those rappers, or those scientists, or those academics educated enough to know what poses a threat and what doesn't. They don't feel threatened, they feel defensive -- each factor replying to a different assault on their identities, either conforming and becoming a non-threat, or radicalizing, and confirming suspicions against them. There must always be an enemy, or the party can't command the obedience and shocked indignation of its followers.
It's sickening.
I'm conservative, in many ways. I'm dating a die-hard Christian, I don't drink, I don't have promiscuous sex, and I'm very economically conservative. I favor a small government, and I'm increasingly convinced of the truth of Orwell's predictions. But I'm not Republican, and I fail to see how any educated conservative can still tolerate calling themselves such. Poverty is the enemy, and disease, and slow economic growth. Monopolies that stifle innovation, increasingly poor national literacy, ecological damage and natural disasters, rigged elections, these are threats. Not "happy holidays." Not flag-burning. Not goddamn homosexual marriage.
The Republican party's confused patriotism with nationalism, and with that critical error, murdered untold thousands, impoverished millions more, and hastened the collapse of this country as a superpower. I'm sick of it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to put this in perspective a little bit. Yearly spending during World War II was about 40% of the Gross Domestic Product of the US. (This of course, was due in great part to rationing. I think the citizens of this country would be better off with a rationing system in place, if only to teach them how to live with what they need instead of trying to get everything they want and then some)
The GDP for 2005 was 12.5 trillion dollars. This war has gone on for 3 years. That means about 160 billion per year (less than that, really). That's about 1.28% of the GDP per year that we're spending on this war. Consider this, as well.
You seem to be panicking over figures that are being highly publicized, even though spending on the war hasn't exceeded average military spending for the past 50 years when the figures are placed in proper context.
Why did we start the war? Well, if you want the legal reason, Saddam Hussein broke the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991 after the first gulf war. If you care to look through that agreement (I'm sorry, I haven't the time to dig up a link for it right now) you'll notice that there are 4 seperate requirements for him to keep. He broke 3, if he had actually been producing chemical weapons, he would have broken all. He only had to break one in order for us to have legal ground for an invasion of Iraq. But then, I don't expect you to respond to legal issues on this. You're running almost entirely on emotion, and emotion doesn't often leave room for logic.
In response to your question about why any educated conservative can still call themselves a republican...well, how about I ask another question. How can any person who has done some serious, personal, un-biased research into the causes of this war, the costs, the casualties, etc. etc. etc., not be completely outraged at the level of media manipulation surrounding this thing?
Think about it another way. The republican party is the only one that is still standing up for what it chose in the begining. How many democratic representatives voted to allow the begining of the war and have now flipped the coin? You cannot say that they were deceived, they were smart enough (presumably) to ask questions vocally (as they are now) yet they did nothing at the time. Does that not wreak of weak and inneficient leadership? I'd rather follow the group that does what they feel is right regardless of public perception (Yes, I realize there are many republicans that don't even do that. I'm not one of them, and they aren't incredibly common, regardless of what the media says).
Now then, everyone may now commence ripping my comments apart for their obvious weaknesses and failings, I really don't care if you do because I wrote this all out without any editing and only about 5 minutes worth of fact checking (Really, those money figures were pretty easy to find).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. I'd rather not follow someone who goes ahead with something that may not be logical without looking at all sides including those that disagree. I believe that in the beginning a lot got caught up in post 9/11 rage. But perhaps they are beginning to see things a different way now.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cause war casualies on either side aren't murder.
You really should try explaining that to somebody who's just had his family shot to death in a "sweep". (And don't assume I'm talking about Iraq, either.)
What murder is frequently depends on which side of the gun you're on.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is exactly why killing isn't murder if the person you kill is pointing a gun at you.
That's beautiful antiwar rhetoric, and I'm not gonna say that such a thing has never happened, but if you're claiming that such an action is SOP for our armed forces you're paranoid.
The larger point of my initial post being that you don't need the exaggeration to prove your point, and it actually weakens the argument. (the 'you' being Lalo)
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree with most of that post, but what does this refer to?
Cause war casualies on either side aren't murder.
They can be referred to as murder in some sense. They are not murder perhaps between the person who drops the bomb under orders, or the soldier who fires a weapon in self-defense. On the other hand, they can be the result of an evil, murderous act on the part of those who are responsible for starting the war, because their decision led to the wanton destruction caused in the war, and they did it for unrighteous reasons. Maybe.
Not all deaths in war are murder, but some definetly are, and the person doing the killing doesn't have to be the murderer, the one who caused a needless death, or thousands of them, for personal gain.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree with most of that post, but what does this refer to?
Cause war casualies on either side aren't murder.
That, of course, relies heavily on the idea that declaring an attack to be war somehow frees killers from responsibility.
If Hussein had attacked us, no, I wouldn't lose sleep over how many people were killed, provided their deaths were necessary to military goals. But we were the aggressors here -- and worse, what evidence we had for the war turned out to be at best impossibly inaccurate, and at worst maliciously fraudulent. Iraq wasn't "pointing a gun at you," and there was never any evidence of threat from Hussein. We were the ones pointing a gun, not Iraq. And now anywhere from 50,000-100,000 people, an overwhelming percentage civilians, are dead for our irresponsibility. If you don't want to call it murder, what is it?
I'm not opposed to war, at all. The threat of it is a useful, even necessary, diplomatic tool, and when used responsibly, can stop butchers and protect the helpless. There's no way I'd oppose military action in Africa. But this invasion? Why did it even happen? The ramifications of a unified, furious Shiite bloc half the size of Europe will mean serious trouble for years, a warning any fifth grader with an atlas and the most fundamental understanding of Islam could have given Bush.
If Bush started this war on fraudulent or dishonest grounds, he's guilty of murder on a massive scale. My brother, who served in the Navy, isn't. His friends aren't. Those who supported Bush and remained unwillfully ignorant, aren't. But if the country were driven to war through dishonesty and fraud, yes, Bush is a murderer, and worse.
That said, I'm not interested in semantical debate over whether killing people is moral if war is declared -- that varies significantly depending on which war is the subject -- but more on understanding why we went to war with Iraq in the first place. I have serious trouble believing the White House bought the disinformation they spread, but if not that... why did we go to war? Why was the White House so determined (since the days of Bush I) to take out Hussein?
I still don't understand.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I believe the defense spending bill covers all US military spending, not just the war in Iraq.
Is that not the case?
No, it's coincidental. The 2007 military budget happens to be around the same size as war-related costs since 2001. This probably includes Afghanistan as well, but I'm not aware that Afghanistan has warranted nearly as much investment as Iraq has.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the defense budgets since the start of the war have really covered the cost of the war. The majority of the money you see on those bills is for soldier pay, equipment procurement, and the like.
The 500 billion dollars in question has all been paid out separately from the ballooning multi hundred billion dollar defense budget of the past couple years (per year).
Personally, if you're just going to use math to attack the war, well quite frankly I agree. I think half a trillion dollars, if used for the sake of national defense, could have been much MUCH better spent in Africa, and wouldn't have required even a major fraction of the manpower and loss of life.
And you can't really count Iraq as part of the Shiite bloc in the Middle East, nor can you say they have a monopoly on the oil. Sunni Saudi Arabia has the largest oil holdings, or somewhat secular Kuwait. As for Iraq itself, the Kurdish fortified north holds half the nation's oil reserves, and they could beat off any attacks from the Shiite south, short of a full scale invasion, which I don't see happening for a number of reasons.
The situation is nowhere near that cut and dry.
On a purely emotionless basis. I don't think this war was worth the cost, both in lives and money. The gains don't equal the price. I'm honestly not even sure what physical gains to America there are. Other than the whole "Hooray we created a new democracy." So many better things could have been done with that money and manpower.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: None of the defense budgets since the start of the war have really covered the cost of the war. The majority of the money you see on those bills is for soldier pay, equipment procurement, and the like.
The 500 billion dollars in question has all been paid out separately from the ballooning multi hundred billion dollar defense budget of the past couple years (per year).
Personally, if you're just going to use math to attack the war, well quite frankly I agree. I think half a trillion dollars, if used for the sake of national defense, could have been much MUCH better spent in Africa, and wouldn't have required even a major fraction of the manpower and loss of life.
And you can't really count Iraq as part of the Shiite bloc in the Middle East, nor can you say they have a monopoly on the oil. Sunni Saudi Arabia has the largest oil holdings, or somewhat secular Kuwait. As for Iraq itself, the Kurdish fortified north holds half the nation's oil reserves, and they could beat off any attacks from the Shiite south, short of a full scale invasion, which I don't see happening for a number of reasons.
The situation is nowhere near that cut and dry.
On a purely emotionless basis. I don't think this war was worth the cost, both in lives and money. The gains don't equal the price. I'm honestly not even sure what physical gains to America there are. Other than the whole "Hooray we created a new democracy." So many better things could have been done with that money and manpower.
You're right about the budget -- Congress has taken care not to include funding for the Iraq war in the defense budget, instead withdrawing it as emergency funds, which don't need to be included.
As far as Shiite Iraq goes, I think you underestimate their presence in Iraq. They don't need to invade Kurdistan -- it's a democracy, remember? They simply need to outnumber their opponents. And now that they control their own country, there's no reason why antagonism between Iran and Iraq should continue -- for half a century, the divide's existed because a hostile minority controlled Iraq.
Saudi Arabia has close ties with Iran as well, and possibly even contributed to 9/11. But Iran/Iraq don't need SA's cooperation to significantly control the price and availability of petroleum -- they don't need to control all of the market in order to manipulate it. Time will show, but I don't think it unlikely that Iran and Iraq will mend fences -- there's still a significant racial difference between the Persians and the Arab Iraqis, but I doubt that'll be enough to prevent alliance, particularly in the face of a common enemy.
This has been an angry thread, and for that I apologize -- I know how easily partisanship is ignited, and making the other side feel threatened is hardly an appropriate choice for eventual consensus. Just... argh. It's difficult to believe people can watch this administration in action and not respond with outrage.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only time will tell. I could give you a dozen possible and very likely scenarios. Iranian/Iraqi oil I really think couldn't strangle hold the world. Mostly because Iraq is just BARELY up to where it was before the war, and we survived, with suffering, through the virtually collapse of their oil industry. Too much oil comes from too many different places now for a single, or even a duet of Middle Eastern countries to try and single handedly control the market. Mexico and Canada account for a fifth of our oil imports, South America is at least another fifth, if not a fourth. Northern and western Africa is probably a good fourth as well. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other nations that aren't going against us any time soon make up a goodly portion of what is left.
Iran can hurt us, but they not enough to get the leverage they'd need to effect any change at all really.
The major question, because we can address either of the scenarios that you and I put forth, is what will happen to Iraq when we leave? Will they stay together? Will they split along religious lines? Will it become two countries? Three? Will southern Iraq simply fold itself into Iran all together, perhaps in some sort of freakish deal to free northwestern Iran, who could then link up with northern Iraq to form a new Kurdistan? Or will they actually stay together as a new nation, unified?
If that is the case, I have a VERY hard time believing that a new, unified, democratic Iraq would choose to ally itself that closely to Iran, for a billion reasons. Maybe over the next FIFTY years, sure, but not anytime soon. They stand to benefit from billions of dollars in continued American support over the next few decades, and allying themselves with Iran will cause that money to disappear, at the very least, not to mention the punishments that will come from willfully choosing to drive the price of oil up.
It's too hard to make any guesses until we discover how politically stable Iraq really is. How will the integration of the new armed forces go? Right now the Kurdish north is defended by an all Kurdish and US force. How willing are they going to be, to head down south to help defend the Sunnis, who as previous members of the Baath party had helped Saddam gas thousands of their people?
We keep thinking that Iraq is one unified, nation, and that the PEOPLE of Iraq look at Iraq the same way we look at America, as a nation of Americans, none different from the others. But I've seen a lot of evidence to the contrary over there, and the factional strife of late is good on the surface proof to back me up as well.
How willing would the Kurdish north, with their 'brothers' so to speak held unwillfully as a part of Iran, be to ally themselves with Iran? Or the Sunnis, who 20 years ago fought Iran tooth and nail in bloody conflict? Shiites might have a majority, but just because we happily have declared them a democracy, doesn't mean that the first time things go painfully awry, that they losers aren't going to get pissy and break the rules. It took Americans 230 years and a bloody Civil War to get used to the idea that you have to accept a political loss without armed conflict, and the Iraqis have a hell of a lot more reason to war with each other, and for sectional strife than we had in 1861, in my opinion anyway. I think in many ways, for a lot of them, the way of thinking goes much similar to what the colonists were thinking when they succeeded from Britain. Virginia is my home, it is my COUNTRY, not some United States government. Tikrit is my home, Baghdad is my home, Basra is my home, etc. Iraq is a 50 year old idea, and not a very good one at that. For much of that time, the Kurdish north has been heavily isolated from what could jokingly be called mainstream Iraq. As soon as something goes wrong, I have a feeling they are going to feel the same way they felt under Saddam to a degree (I'll argue this later in more detail if I have to), in that, under Saddam they even had a degree of autonomy, why should they bow down to a democracy any more than a dictatorship, if in both regimes they don't get their way?
There's so many questions that have to be answered, so many things that can go wrong, and right. Before we can get to the point where we fear what direction a unified Iraq might take, I think we should wait and see whether or not a unified Iraq even survives this bloody baptism in order for them to be able to even make those decisions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Hussein had attacked us, no, I wouldn't lose sleep over how many people were killed, provided their deaths were necessary to military goals. But we were the aggressors here -- and worse, what evidence we had for the war turned out to be at best impossibly inaccurate, and at worst maliciously fraudulent. Iraq wasn't "pointing a gun at you," and there was never any evidence of threat from Hussein. We were the ones pointing a gun, not Iraq. And now anywhere from 50,000-100,000 people, an overwhelming percentage civilians, are dead for our irresponsibility. If you don't want to call it murder, what is it?
Dude. You are weakening your argument, and it is one which needs to be made.
Saddam Hussein was on parole from another aggressive war for conquest which he had begun, and lost. He is a known and public sponsor of terrorist interests (money to suicide bomber families). He has used WMD on civilian populations before. He was a bloody-handed and malicious tyrant who had frequently expressed an enmity for America, and was involved in attempting to assassinate a former US President.
He had also repeatedly violated rules concerning no-fly zones, and agreements he'd signed concerning weapons inspectors. He did so before, and did so prior to the second Gulf War.
All of this amounts to plenty of evidence of a threat from Saddam Hussein. You should be attacking the evidence that was put forth as the primary evidence agaisnt him, the 'smoking gun', not blithely dismissing him as 'no threat'. He was obviously a threat, man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't want to call it murder, what is it?
You call it whatever you like, so long as you know that calling it 'murder' does a huge disservice to our Armed Forces and makes you look like a frothing alarmist liberal. Since I happen to know that you are not a frothing alarmist liberal, I thought I'd give you the heads up that your exaggeration makes you look that way.
Call them what they are, you don't need the hyperbole.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You call it whatever you like, so long as you know that calling it 'murder' does a huge disservice to our Armed Forces and makes you look like a frothing alarmist liberal. Since I happen to know that you are not a frothing alarmist liberal, I thought I'd give you the heads up that your exaggeration makes you look that way.
Call them what they are, you don't need the hyperbole.
While I agree, I think it's worth pointing out that you can consider war victims murdered without considering the soldiers who did the killing the murderers.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The truth is true no matter how stating it makes you appear.
Not to respond directly to what is an isn't true, but I think there is something to the idea that people's reaction to "the truth" should be telling you about how valuable it may be. What I mean to say is, if you say something you think is true and it makes you look like a heal, then maybe its a truth not worth mentioning, or a truth which you can argue for, but which has no value in an argument. Again, not in response to this situation, but as a general aside. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
