How many troops? How many dollars?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by charboneau, Feb 28, 2003.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    #1
    An article on the size of a US occupation force in Iraq

    And now projections of the cost of the operation are running into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    But the current reason for the war is still crystal clear:
    Saddam Hussein has not proved that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction that are not as deadly as ours in his country thousands of miles away. The fact that he hasn't attacked us or threatened to attack is testament to his deception.
     
  2. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #2
    as if we'd stick around long enough to ensure peace. once we have spilled all the blood, we just disappear, leaving citizens without the security they were promised, and also without whatever passed for suitable economy before the war.

    well, of course we'd leave enough minimal staff to run and defend the oil fields...

    pnw
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    louisville
    #3
    once the war is over, we can upgrade iraq's pathetic oil wells to start pumping more oil. and then hopefully tap into even more undiscovered oil supplies still under iraq. the proceeds from this will hopefully help us recoup some of the financial costs of the war. if we're lucky there may even be enough to help finance an invasion of north korea
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #4
    I hope you are not suggesting that we go to war for economic reasons. i thought the purpose of Bush's war was to rid the world of a despotic leader, not to make a few bucks so we can do it again.

    Glenn
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #5
    charboneau, are you seriously trying to tell us that Saddam doesn't have these weapons programs? Even those who oppose intervention by force at this time confirm that he has the weapons and weapons programs.

    He hasn't complied with the terms of the cease-fire agreement. The question is whether he will be made to comply or not.

    In addition, far from never attacking us, he's been shooting at our planes in the no fly zones on a regular basis.

    paul,
    If this thing comes off and Saddam is deposed, and we do stick around until Iraq has a stable government, will you come back and apologize for the statements you have made on the matter today?
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    Exactly like we did with Japan and Germany I guess?
     
  7. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #7
    'BILLIONS OF DOLLARS'

    People don't like it when I talk about politics so I will not here.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    So what! You have as much right as anyone else. So go ahead, talk politics. i may agree or disagree with your viewpoint.
     
  9. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    No, at least $100 billion, with no prospect that any of the "coalition of the willing" will contribute a cent towards the effort. In fact the Turks are charging us tens of billions just for the privilege of "protecting" them.

    Incidentally, this is just the latest estimate to come out of the Pentagon, and they keep rolling higher all the time. When Sec. Rumsfeld was asked about the possibility of the cost going to as much as $50 billion just a few weeks ago, he insisted that it was a ridiculously inflated figure.

    But not to worry -- our government has everything well in hand. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...
     
  10. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #10
    Gladly.

    go poke your head into Afghanistan for a while, see what we left for the people.

    at least we set up a new government. and the people remembered how to function with freedom. but the whole region is going downhill fast, i'm amazed their fashonable new president hasn't been assassinated yet. like cockroaches, the people we tried to get rid of waited until the lights were turned off, and are beginning to flourish in the region once more. but um, no one look at afghanistan, that's yesterday's news and today we have new things to bomb.

    japan and germany were second world powers. iraq is third world. we have a poor track record with third world invasions. tho we have been lucky for the most part...

    pnw
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    748s

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    Tiger Bay
    #11
    the turks got done over by the usa in gulf war 1.0. they want the money up front this time.
    they don't think it's worth another major recession on a promise of we'll look after ya, pay all our costs, then we'll send you the money. once bitten twice shy.
     
  12. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Public opinion in Turkey is running something like 95% against a U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Normally you can't get 95% of any population to agree that the sun will rise tomorrow.

    But like I said before, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Our president's leadership is splendid and beyond reproach.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #13
    The president's leadership has not been beyond reproach, but it has been splendid.



    To answer the question posed by the title of the post:

     
  14. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    A reply entirely contrary to the evidence presented and unresponsive to the points made previously.

    While we're quoting presidents:

    We're a freedom-loving nation. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're humble nation, they'll respect us. -- George W. Bush
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #15
    IJ Reilly,

    You haven't made any points previously. You've just said that it will cost a lot, and that the Turkish public doesn't like the idea. So what? We pay what it takes.


    ------------------
    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
    This much we pledge - and more." --John F. Kennedy.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #16
    Is there a point where the price, in terms of money spent or human casulties, becomes too great?

    Glenn
     
  17. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    With this statement you have revealed the total desperation of your position, and made it clear that you can't defend it on any account whatsoever. You've obviously chosen to believe that all mitigating, complicating, or contraindicating factors are totally irrelevant. IOW, your mind is utterly closed on the matter.
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #18
    IJ Reilly,
    It is not a reflection of the "desperation of my position" Rather, it is a reflection that the cost is worth the potential return both in terms of the risks removed and the payoff of a better environment for peace in the Middle East. What I am saying is not that we pay ANY cost, but that the cost we are paying, what it takes to remove Saddam, is worth it the price.

    Kennedy is the one who said "we shall pay any price."

    Glenn,
    Yes. There is a point. However, we are not at that point, and are not likely to get anywhere close to it.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    louisville
    #19
    yes there is, when my tax dollars are used to subsidize partial birth abortions, or perhaps to pay for the over 20% of the current u.s. prison population made up of illegal immigrants.
    now using my money to protect the interests of our gov't and it's security.... i'm cool with that
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    macktheknife

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    #20
    Do you have any evidence or statistics from a reliable source on this? I'd like to see your source, if you don't mind.
     
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    You seem to be reduced to contradicting yourself now. You are already on the record and saying we should "pay what it takes," which means literally that no cost is too high. Your qualification makes absolutely no sense in light of your original statement.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #22
    I think that Macfan was just clarifying his position and not trying to contradict himself, (I hope you don't mind if I read your thoughts ). I asked if there was any price too high, because we are led to believe that Iraq is the tip of the iceberg, and there will be more to come.

    Frankly, I think the only reason we are going to attack Iraq (and we will) is because they are too weak to do much about it. The country that I believe is a greater threat to the world is North Korea. They will fight back.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #23
    pivo6,
    You are right. I was clarifying the position that "we pay what it takes." There is always a theoretical point at which any action is not worth the cost. The question for us to consider now is whether it is worth the cost to pay what it will take to solve this problem. I believe it is worth this cost, and that the potential payoff in terms of a broader Middle East peace is worth the cost.

    We are not attacking North Korea for several reasons, chief among them as you say, they will fight back. Unlike Iraq, they aren't currently in violation of the cease-fire agreement that stopped the shooting in their continuing war against the forces of the United Nations. Attacking North Korea would also, very importantly, make China very nervous. As it is, China doesn't want to have North Korea as a nuclear power either. North Korea can shell the capital of South Korea into ruins from their current positions, severly harming the country we have been helping to defend for 50 years. North Korea is on the brink of collapse, we are having to send food to keep them afloat.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #25
    We don't need to click on that link to know that the policy goal of the United States was to have full relationship with Sadam (in the hope of having "influence" over him). What the history that followed has shown us is that having that relationship, instead of limiting Saddam, has enabled him. We should learn from that history and remove him rather than having full diplomatic and commercial ties with him.
     

Share This Page