"The War"

[Petalumadom]

So, what do you think of the war in Iraq?

A few points to consider:

1. The US army & friends took over Iraq, a nation that was considered a super-power in the region, in an extremely short amount of time...

2. This terrified many largely Islamic countries in the region and had a positive effect on the respect many of those nations had for us... (Fear may be a better word than respect)

3. A democratic congress voted for the war...

4. Even now after years and years of occupation casualties are extremely low...

5. You hear a lot of BS about how much we're spending on the war... They tell you hundreds of billions of dollars are going towards the war... money that could be spent here! guess what... The US government spends 4% of GDP on defense... Clinton spent 3% (that was when he was closing many military bases) and in the 70s and 80 it was 7-9%... This is when more than 50% of the taxes the US government collects are transfer payments... That is taking money from you and giving it to someone else... Robin hood basically...

ok, so from this you're thinking I support the war and we should be in there forever right? No... We can go and knock out every dictator in the world... but it's really not our job... the problem with the war is the occupation and was not the war itself... Everyone would love to pull out immediately... But if you think we should pull out immediately no further ado you don't understand war... it's not that simple...

and last of all... the war for oil thing... get real... The Iraqi's and US folks there have given all the drilling rights to Russian and Italian oil companies... We're not getting much out of it...

well... I'm done with my rant... probably has some major problems wit hit... but there are some good facts in there...

[Isles of Nixon]

In 2003 as a young idealistic American, I was all for the war in Iraq. As a New Yorker, I saw what happens when you let these sponsors of terrorism alone and regardless of whether there was weapons of mass destruction or not, to see Saddam ousted from power a few weeks before Christmas in 2003, was truly a magnificent sight.

Having said that, we can all agree mistakes have been made in the planning of Iraq however we will have a presence there for a long time to come. I think those who go after John McCain's "hundred years" comment need a 2 by 4 to the skull - we have thousands of troops in Germany, Italy, Korea, Diego Garcia, and we have naval outposts all over the world. That's what comes with conquering another country.

[New Dracora]

I don't think I really need to say anything else.

[Petalumadom]

lol...

Here is the actual GDP to Defense Spending Chart for the people who think the money we are spending in Iraq is special or new spending stuff:

perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/16/

Defense Spending is down 3% from 2 decades ago... and up less than 1% from the 40 year low...

[Libertarian Freemen]

I never got on the Iraq War bandwagon. I have always thought it was a bad idea - not that we couldn't do it, but that it wasn't our job, there was no danger, and Saddam had no real connection to 9-11.

[Twobagger]

Jun 15, 2008 7:20:56 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

I don't think I really need to say anything else.

A lack of content doesn't speak for itself.

Also, Petalumadom, I agree with most of your points but take objection to this one:

You hear a lot of BS about how much we're spending on the war... They tell you hundreds of billions of dollars are going towards the war... money that could be spent here! guess what... The US government spends 4% of GDP on defense... Clinton spent 3% (that was when he was closing many military bases) and in the 70s and 80 it was 7-9%...

But billions of dollars are going to the war that could be spent here. The fact that we only spend 4% of our GDP on defense doesn't change the fact that we're spending billions of it in Iraq. And our troops probably won't (or shouldn't, for stability issues) be coming home for a while even after the war ends... after all, we do still maintain troops in Germany, Italy, and Korea, and we haven't fought in any of those theaters in years.

[Anime Daisuki]

Petal your "facts" are misleading. First of all, you are getting them from Ross Perot's website, and I can assure you they are skewed to make the conservative viewpoint. You need to get ----information_from_neutral,_independent_websites.

Here's what GDP chart did not tell you, and why it is misleading:

True, the military spending as percentage of GDP has dropped compared to the 60s or 70s. But because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military portion of it can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP.

Another VERY important point. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not an accurate representation of government spending. The GDP includes PRIVATE, market driven stuff -- it represents all that's going on within the borders of the United States, including money changing hands in wall street, for example, or a middle-east investor investing to buy a factory, or what Wal-mart made in that year. Everything is counted, as long as it happened on domestic soil. GDP does not count things that happened in Iraq, because that's not domestic.

When you want make a case about government spending, you have to look at the Federal Budget. This is entirely a different thing from GDP. Within that Federal Budget you have to look at the Defense portion. But this can also be misleading because not included in the Defense Department budget are many military related things such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars are funded through the discretionary portion of the budget, which is negotiated between Congress and the Executive each year. They are separate from say, paying yearly salaries for Pentagon Executives or soldiers, which are part of the Defense portion.

So how much of the "total" was actually spent on the wars? Well it depends on who you ask. The Center of Defense Information which I consider to be independent and not leaning to either the liberal or conservative pov, says its 50 percent of the discretionary budget in 2003.

-AD
.

[New Dracora]

Jun 16, 2008 0:07:18 GMT -5 Twobagger said:

Jun 15, 2008 7:20:56 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

I don't think I really need to say anything else.

A lack of content doesn't speak for itself.

I can re-post it if you would like. Perhaps given a second chance you might be able to understand?

[Petalumadom]

Jun 16, 2008 1:02:42 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Petal your "facts" are misleading. First of all, you are getting them from Ross Perot's website, and I can assure you they are skewed to make the conservative viewpoint. You need to get ----information_from_neutral,_independent_websites.

Here's what GDP chart did not tell you, and why it is misleading:

True, the military spending as percentage of GDP has dropped compared to the 60s or 70s. But because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military portion of it can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP.

Another VERY important point. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not an accurate representation of government spending. The GDP includes PRIVATE, market driven stuff -- it represents all that's going on within the borders of the United States, including money changing hands in wall street, for example, or a middle-east investor investing to buy a factory, or what Wal-mart made in that year. Everything is counted, as long as it happened on domestic soil. GDP does not count things that happened in Iraq, because that's not domestic.

When you want make a case about government spending, you have to look at the Federal Budget. This is entirely a different thing from GDP. Within that Federal Budget you have to look at the Defense portion. But this can also be misleading because not included in the Defense Department budget are many military related things such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The wars are funded through the discretionary portion of the budget, which is negotiated between Congress and the Executive each year. They are separate from say, paying yearly salaries for Pentagon Executives or soldiers, which are part of the Defense portion.

So how much of the "total" was actually spent on the wars? Well it depends on who you ask. The Center of Defense Information which I consider to be independent and not leaning to either the liberal or conservative pov, says its 50 percent of the discretionary budget in 2003.

-AD
.

yes, but I only found the petrocharts thing the other day...

Most of the stuff I talked about was presented to me earlier from the cbo (congressional budget office) website... which I would consider a neutral source...

You just gave me anotehr great idea though!

SOCIAL SECURITY!

lol what a mess... *goes off to start another topic*

[Sinn Féin's Ireland]

I left school that day to march against the war in 2003.

I'm proud of that.


Now we've screwed a country up. We have to un-screw it. It's our moral obligation.
Most people who call for the troops to be pulled out are not concerned about the state of Iraq, just about getting 'our boys' home safe. This isn't a good attitude.

The Iraq war has caused more problems than it has solved. Some many aims and motives have been thrown around, but there is probably a grain of truth in all of them. Yes, i imagine Democracy promotion and the removal of Saddam were on the agenda. Oil undoubtedly was, and the staging post for future invasions also was.

[Isles of Nixon]

It's time like these that I'm so proud to have supported George Bush in 2000 and voted for his successful re-election in 2004. More good has come from the invasion of Iraq than bad. War for oil is a complete fallacy and is just used by those who don't have logical argument and who buy into the various conspiracy theories like the government was behind 9/11, there were 80 men on the grassy knoll in Dallas, and the Secret Service was behind the assassination of Bobby, very unfortunate that there are those out there.

Twenty-five million more people have democracy now and have been able to exercise said democracy by voting in historic margins. I was in the UK in February of 2003 as they marched down the Thames and it was interesting seeing all these young folks march against the war - even the bobbies said the only reason they were there was to smoke illicit substances without getting persecuted, very sad state of affairs and made me even more prouder to be an American.

[Sheynat]

Jun 16, 2008 1:02:42 GMT -5 Anime Daisuki said:

Another VERY important point. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not an accurate representation of government spending. The GDP includes PRIVATE, market driven stuff -- it represents all that's going on within the borders of the United States, including money changing hands in wall street, for example, or a middle-east investor investing to buy a factory, or what Wal-mart made in that year. Everything is counted, as long as it happened on domestic soil. GDP does not count things that happened in Iraq, because that's not domestic.

.

Looked it up. In terms of actual government spending, fully twenty percent of the federal budget went to defense in fiscal year 2007.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

And now, for the original post.
Regarding point one, we overthrew the Ba'ath government with a quickness. It was the kind of buttkicking lost to the world. It was like someone gave Conan the Cimmerian a chainsaw and a mile-long power cable. That didn't end the war. Things only started getting worse. Long story short, eventually we're going to leave-if not withdrawn at the request of Congress, then withdrawn to suppress the revolts that will come. When that happens, the Islamists win. In other words, Islamic fundamentalist rule in Iraq, once unlikely, is now iinevitable. Thank you very d**n much.
2. They fear us? You're joking, right? Iran is basically daring us to attack. Saudi Arabia has us over a barrel. The rest are ignoring us because now we're too entangled in this fool war to do anything to them.
3. I hate this argument. People make it all the time. There's this illusion that one is automatically obligated to defend a decision once their party of choice makes it. I don't agree. Senator you voted against makes a choice you can't live with? Vote for the other guy in the primary. If there is no other guy, become the other guy. Even if you don't win, he gets the message. In short, this is not an argument for it. Also, Congress was Republican at that time, I believe. Democrats did vote for it, and have since been punished by their constituents-witness Hillary.
4. American casualities now exceed the number of casualities inflicted on 9/11. Furthermore, civilian casualities-I did some Google searching. The lowest number I could find, the one which, apparently, Bush cites, which is put out by a group in Britain called Iraq Body Count, is something like 100,000 dead.
5. Dealt with above. 20 percent of the federal budget goes to defense.

[Petalumadom]

Umm... the American causalities are at 33,000... 4,000 dead of those... I'm sorry, but I don't know of the last time there was a major country conquered and occupied for years that had causalities that low...

The 100,000 that you refer to is most likely Iraqi dead... (sad yes, but unfortunately Stalin is right... a single death is a tragedy... a thousand, a statistic...)

point 5 is that only 4% of all the monetary transactions in this country... even with this war on... go to the war or any type of military area... if you're willing to spend 30%+ of the governments budget on transfer payments and not 20% to theoretically keep you safe... move somewhere else

I'd lake to make the open concession that if we could go back to 2003 it would be best not to be where we are... of course we can say we deposed a dictator and brought democracy to a nation... But how many more do we have left?

should we invade North Korea? Iran? (probably will anyway) many smaller countries in asia and africa? Where do we stop? Saddam is not the only horrible dictator in the world...

[Isles of Nixon]

The following clip from The West Wing sums it up perfectly - .

Simply put, "they'll like us when we win", and we are winning now, we will win tomorrow and we will win 100 years from now.

[MinnaCaroline]

I'm totally against the war and I still don't think we should have invaded in the first place.

[Petalumadom]

Actually, come to think of it... why didn't TITO stop this invasion?

;D

[Bad Infinitum]

Jun 17, 2008 18:34:09 GMT -5 Isles of Nixon said:

Simply put, "they'll like us when we win", and we are winning now, we will win tomorrow and we will win 100 years from now.

How have we won if we're still in Iraq in a hundred years? The only way to win this war is to end it.

[Petalumadom]

yeah, we don't want to get carried away... we DO want to end this war as fast as possible and still get the job done in an acceptable manner...

Staying for the sake of staying and withdrawing for the sake of withdrawing are both bad ideas... Finish the job as fast as possible and get out... if that DOES take us a hundred years shame on us...

[Maxxalot]

This is not a job that can ust be finished. We are never going to be able to end all conflicts in the region and finally attain "peace in the middle east." These conflicts have been going on forever; and there will always be these conflicts between the different cultures and religious groups until that mind set is broken, until the next generation plants different ideas into the childrens' heads. We are not going to be able to eliminate the problem by eradicating all these so called "radicals" or by finally finding Osama. This is not something that is going to be won through military strength, Middle Easterners ust need to realize the situation and make a change. This is not our battle to fight, it is their's.

[Greek People Nation (GPN)]

All I have to say is ASK THE TROOPS WHAT THEY WANT TODO.
and I bet you they would say, they want to stay untill the job is done.

[Sinn Féin's Ireland]

There's no solution, just a series of options, some less palatable than others. To be honest, saying we should never have gone in is not a solution. We just have to pick one and go with it. We'll get a lot of flak for whatever happens.

[Enigmatic]

True

[Ubeki beki beki beki stan stan]

Jun 18, 2008 18:50:13 GMT -5 Petalumadom said:

yeah, we don't want to get carried away... we DO want to end this war as fast as possible and still get the job done in an acceptable manner...

Staying for the sake of staying and withdrawing for the sake of withdrawing are both bad ideas... Finish the job as fast as possible and get out... if that DOES take us a hundred years shame on us...

What if we withdrew for the sake of staying or stayed for the sake of withdrawing? ;D

[New Dracora]

Jul 5, 2008 11:06:07 GMT -5 Greek People Nation (GPN) said:

All I have to say is ASK THE TROOPS WHAT THEY WANT TODO.
and I bet you they would say, they want to stay untill the job is done.

Ok then - PAI what do you want to do?

[TenThousand]

we should have teamed with Iraq and hit Iran in the ;D ballz

[Empierium]

In Brittan the war in Iraq is considered a shambles we even have an inquiry into what happened underway even the ex-prime minister been called in to explain what happened

[Empierium]

The attack on Iraq is considered illegal by several countries the only reason America and Britain wern't kicked out of the UN is because there the 2 most powerful countries

[Pompadoodle]

Yeah, I'd certainly say that the Iraq war was both illegal and a shambles. The war bit was well executed, although really what sort of result do you expect from US + UK vs Iraq in a conventionial war? The Iraqis were always going to be crushed.

The aftermath, though...what a dreadful mess. Mass looting, failure to provide basic services like water and electricity, a nosedive in the position of women etc etc.

I opposed the war at the time, and nothing thats happened since has changed my mind. Rather, I feel vindicated. Its made the west substantially less secure, poisoned relations with the muslim world, led to the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of people (mainly Iraqis). And for what?

[CTALNH]

First we all have to understand this is not a war on terror second we all know this is just a way to put pressure on IRAN third you Americans gave the weapons to the afghans so don't involve the rest in matters [EE] fourth let people decide their own matters why the hell do Americans care if some afghans AND IRAQIS die not even your are all worthless but all of you are hypocrites and last this is company interest and don't say no the war in iraq was started because iraq had big oil field

[Lakenburgh]

Even though it's not Irak but Afghanistan, what do you all think about the whole wiki leaks affair?