When will Bush learn to cut loss in Iraq?

[piezoe]

Pa(b)st, when you wrote:

Other than paying a buck more for gas (which might not even be Iraq related) America felt no pain over this war.

I think you may have slightly underestimated the impact of this war. The most reliable estimates for total war related deaths including both US and Iraqi is in the neighborhood of 400,000 (Johns Hopkins study). The number seriously injured is at least double that! The most comprehensive total cost estimates are in the neighborhood of 4 TRILLION dollars. This includes not only current war costs but future costs as well, such as reparations, medical costs, payments to families, veterans benefits, interest, etc.

Even amortized over 30 years this is a significant cost, and will have to be paid via a combination of inflation (or its equivalent in higher taxes) and lowered standard of living. The cost is very roughly $400 a year over 30 years (the estimate includes interest) per man woman and child. Or $1600/year for a family of 4. However the cost will not be shared equally and some will pay a much higher fraction of their income than others. In my opinion, these costs in lives lost and ruined, and in dollars, is significant. We can handle these costs, but there is a limit to how much more of this insanity we can afford, or indeed, put up with.

 

[hels02]

I want to see Bush brought up on war crimes. Barring that, at least the inconvenience of a Congressional investigation by Independent Council.

I don't know why Bush can't be hung next to Saddam, I think Bush has now killed more people in Iraq than Saddam did, including 3000 Americans. Saddam never managed that.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from piezoe:

Pa(b)st, when you wrote:

Other than paying a buck more for gas (which might not even be Iraq related) America felt no pain over this war.

I think you may have slightly underestimated the impact of this war. The most reliable estimates for total war related deaths including both US and Iraqi is in the neighborhood of 400,000 (Johns Hopkins study). The number seriously injured is at least double that! The most comprehensive total cost estimates are in the neighborhood of 4 TRILLION dollars. This includes not only current war costs but future costs as well, such as reparations, medical costs, payments to families, veterans benefits, interest, etc.

Even amortized over 30 years this is a significant cost, and will have to be paid via a combination of inflation (or its equivalent in higher taxes) and lowered standard of living. The cost is very roughly $400 a year over 30 years (the estimate includes interest) per man woman and child. Or $1600/year for a family of 4. However the cost will not be shared equally and some will pay a much higher fraction of their income than others. In my opinion, these costs in lives lost and ruined, and in dollars, is significant. We can handle these costs, but there is a limit to how much more of this insanity we can afford, or indeed, put up with.

Well put, and the post by hels02 is worth reading too. I suggested to Pabst that the cost of WWII, although huge, was justified in the sense that we were fighting a clear enemy and there was no choice but to defend against Hitler (and by the way, just for interest's sake, Pabst strongly disagreed with this and called into question American involvement in WWII. He also called Hitler one of his personal heroes. I seriously doubt that Pabst views the hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians as a cost in any way. He is on record as saying that he hates anyone who is not of European extraction).

The problem in Iraq is that the cost is not even remotely justified by the results, either the ones we have now or the ones we might conceivably have. This is IMO only, of course; there are those here who still believe that the action in Iraq is somehow directly related to and crucial in terms of the struggle against Muslim extremists. Even the president has now admitted, on his way to lame duck status, that the war is not now being won, and it is clear that if it's not being won now, it never was.

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Losses? What losses? Paper losses are not losses! They only become losses if you sell! This is a long term investment!

We're not losing the war in Iraq. We will only lose if we cut and run. Stay the course!

We have only lost because of who we have become and its very sad.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from tradermaji:

Take a look around on this board... you will see the slimy klansmen crawling around. Due to inbreeding their genetic pools have become shallow and have reduced their analytical abilities. Scumbag politicians infesting the repugniklans take advantage of these mental midgets.

______________________________________________

Al Qaeda Sends a Message to Democrats
December 22, 2006 2:28 PM

Brian Ross and Hoda Osman Report:

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.
___________________________________________-

Sound alike?

Wonder why?

 

[princessa]

Quote from tradermaji:

Take a look around on this board... you will see the slimy klansmen crawling around. Due to inbreeding their genetic pools have become shallow and have reduced their analytical abilities. Scumbag politicians infesting the repugniklans take advantage of these mental midgets.

amen...although i probably wouldn't have put it quite that directly....

 

[MajorUrsa]

Quote from hels02:

We can't leave Iraq now. If we do, we give Iraq to Iran.

We funded Saddam Hussein for 7 years to fight Iran because of the Ayatolla Khomeni (remember the 52 hostages in Iran under Jimmy Carter?). That's why the Gulf War 15 years ago meant we fought against some of our own weapons and old trucks.

12 years later, after imposing severe trade sanctions, we go in to take our ally out... the one that did for us what we asked him and paid him to do, fight a 7 year war vs religious fanatics. Our loyal buddy and former ally Saddam.

Good stuff hels02. Makes one wonder, in hindsight, whether the reason that justified Gulfwar 1 (invasion of Kuwait) were maybe just as farfetched (and maybe pre-fabricated) as those for Gulfwar 2 seem to be. I have always found that sudden invasion very strange.

When I read your analysis I even start feeling sorry for the poor bastard (Saddam ie.)

Ursa..

 

[Sam321]

You are smaaart. Me play banjo. Me live in van down by river. Me van broken. Can you make van go? You like Democrat. Democrat run Congress. Democrats are smaaart. Dey fix tings. Dey make Irak go.

Quote from tradermaji:

Take a look around on this board... you will see the slimy klansmen crawling around. Due to inbreeding their genetic pools have become shallow and have reduced their analytical abilities. Scumbag politicians infesting the repugniklans take advantage of these mental midgets.

 

[5Pillars]

Face it.............the US will keep a presence in Iraq (both Democrats and Republicans....makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE) and other parts of the middle east until every damn drop of oil is sucked dry from that region..........Face it!


http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/gates_us_maintain_long_presence_in_gulf.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15968.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/21/niyzazov-iran/

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_uk_add_ships_to_gulf_signal_to_iran.htm

The truth is always there, no matter what opinions or beliefs one has the truth in its ACTUAL form is never hidden.....it is only chosen by some to not be viewed.......


http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061220/480/whre11812202042&g=events/pl/081201presidentbush

 

[Sam321]

I hope it’s about oil. It’s supposed to be about oil from Day One. Saddam was isolated. Why should he control it when he violated over a dozen UN resolutions? He blew it and isolated himself, so now he’s out and we’re in. If we’re out, why should Iran have it? And don’t say, “well, the Iraqis should have it,” because the Iraqis will be shepherd by someone else if we leave, like Iran. So, if Iran will go in and install a puppet government of its own, then why can’t we stay and install our own puppet government? Why should we let more of the world’s oil be controlled by more Islamists? It makes no sense.

Our problem is that we have the wrong general(s) running the show. You don’t choose a general just because he’s an Arab. You choose the best general that wins “unwinnable” situations. Bush is the only one up there making the hard choices, but he needs to make even harder choices.

Quote from 5Pillars:

Face it.............the US will keep a presence in Iraq (both Democrats and Republicans....makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE) and other parts of the middle east until every damn drop of oil is sucked dry from that region..........Face it!