America has spent $5.9 trillion on wars in the Middle East

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/us-...wBy44CMl0dTXjTUgjLoUqYxYsKJ656aUcQ7jawoht4rS4
    am I the only one who wants to end this endless fecal matter show? :(
     
  2. stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #2
    And who supported those wars and backed those wars? America does not just go to war with a country unless there is support in Congress and Senate. The other question would be which lobby cost the American taxpayer $5.9 Trillion since they began in 2001 ;)
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    BOTH SIDES did :(
     
  4. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5
    Damn, that could have helped pay off a good chunk of the $21 Trillion in debt the US holds.

    Western nations hold tremendous debt to live like we do and still consider ourselves '1st world countries'... we are in for a rude awakening.
     
  5. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #6
    But we've accomplished so much! The Middle East is more stable than ever! :rolleyes:

    You'd think we'd know a lost cause when we see one.
     
  6. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
    #7
    Wars are a necessary evil. They do need an end date.

    ME - BTDTBTTS
     
  7. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #8
    They could have gave me a measly $100 million and had the same exact results. :p
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    Hubris.

    We sucked the USSR into Afghanistan to “give them their own Vietnam” in a concerted effort to bleed them dry.

    Then, two decades later *literally the same people* decided they wanted to invade the “graveyard of empires” pretending that we were so ****ing magical and special that we wouldn’t end with the same result.
     
  9. ActionableMango, Dec 17, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018

    ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #10
    Yes, all of the military adventuring we do must stop.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018 ---
    Are you SURE you could have boosted terrorism as much with only $100 million? That's a lofty goal.

    upload_2018-12-17_11-0-3.png
     
  10. FrenchRoasted macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #11
    Nine whole replies to this. If you questioned having 5 gender bathrooms or said ANYTHING about Trump, this would have 200 replies and a whole lot of name calling.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    At least the world is a safer place. Money well spent.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018 ---
    ...one of which says nothing relevant at all. Amazing indeed.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    We want to have influence in the Middle East but the sad fact is that we are bankrupting ourselves, and undermining our collective standard of living with these foreign adventures. We desperately need to get the focus back on us. This is not an isolationist argument, it is a reordering priorities in a responsible manner argument, knowing what our limitations are in an adult manner.
     
  13. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #14


    In general, absolutely, in the case of what the US did since 2003, absolutely not.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #15
    Agreed, though I’d put that starting post back quite a bit further.
     
  15. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    My impression is that the First Gulf War was regarded as a good thing. It had a limited goal and was regarded favorably by many Arab countries. Now how many of those countries are dictatorships? Well... good dictators are better than bad ones? We’ve been playing that toon for quite a while for influence and our own percieved good. :oops:
     
  16. stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #17
    The first war was the worst thing. The majority of the Arab countries in the Gulf and the majority of the UN Members didn’t rule by majority in favor of a war against Iraq nor did the majority support the US Invasion of Iraq. I remember that part quite well as back before the war I was lucky enough to meet The Saudi Defense Minister in Paris at Prince Walid’s Hotel. Saudi Arabia at the time strongly opposed the war and in fact the US had to leave Saudi Arabia as it did not allow for any weapons to be launched from their soil. The last Saudi ruler was much better compared to this current one in some ways I believe. Not all ways of course.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #18
    That war was also built on lies, with the help of a PR firm.

    The equivalent at the time to Powell’s UN speech was the testimonial of a “nurse” who cried openly about the Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait by dumping them out of incubator. Only later was it revealed that “nurse” was actually THE DAUGHTER of the Kuwaiti embassador who just so happened to be a close personal friend of Bush I.

    The PR firm (I don’t remember the name offhand) was workshopping narratives for the war MONTHS ahead of the “incident” that was the spark for the war. That’s where the focus on the terms “dictator” and “madman” became the standard propaganda tactic the US for decades to come.

    It was a lie, a big ****ing lie.
     
  18. FrenchRoasted macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #19
    Zing! one internet cookie for you!
    --- Post Merged, Dec 18, 2018 ---
    Except we (Bush W's office) gave tacit encouragement to Sadam before he invaded Kuwait. Almost like we were deviously planning for war.
    I regard the "necessary evil" theory of war like trading freedom for security. A very dangerous idea.
     
  19. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #20
    The US staged personnel in and out of Saudi during the first Gulf War. So Saudi liked the idea of Kuwait being taken over by Iraq?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 18, 2018 ---
    Kuwait was invaded by Iraq yes?
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #21
    Oh I’m glad that our planning of that war and the clear propaganda campaign of it don’t matter. Our strategic pronouncement directly to Saddam (a US asset until it was time to turn on him) that we had no stance on the matter (giving him the green light, because he still only made moves after running them by Washington) don’t matter at all either. Context doesn’t matter in such a simple world.

    Do you have a problem with the key testimony which resulted in approval for the war, which were blatant lies, falsely given by the ambassadors DAUGHTER?

    Honest to god, people wonder why the world is the way it is, but we have our answer. Our history simply doesn’t matter, just glib one liners apparently.

    Any opinion on the war crimes we committed such as the highway of death massacre?
     
  21. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    Please provide your documentation on the first part. You believe we encouraged Iraq to invade, so we could then push him back, to what end? Had a truce been announced when the highway massacre happened? If not, it was a combat action. It’s a judgement call as these forces had not surrendered.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #23
    Regarding the highway of death: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.features111
    We sure worked hard to frame it as combat action, congrats on keeping that narrative alive. It was a clear retreat. I recently listened to an interview of one of the pilots who was among the group Bush gave a pre-mission pep talk to. He discussed how callously and bloodthirsty that ******* was when the cameras weren't around in regards to this exact mission. You'll have to excuse me because it'll take a while to go back and dig that up.

    Please stop filling in my statements with assertions I haven't made. A "green light" isn't encouragement of an invasion, we simply made it clear we "had no opinion on the matter". Which, given all the war planning on our side already underway would lead some to question whether that ambiguity was intentional or not. Given what I know about Bush's past and underhanded history at the CIA, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/
     
  23. Huntn, Dec 18, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2018

    Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    The last part if you did not say it, seemed like you implied it. So why lure Iraq, and then just push them back? What was the goal? This article makes it sound like incompetence. Can you think of a better reason? If you tell me Cheney was to blame, I could believe you.

    The real problem imo was Jr’s invasion of Iraq based on Trumped Up charges.

    What is your take on the Guardian Article link you posted as a whole? The US Military are war criminals? The highway of death, I know the aftermath, but don’t know what happened during. Were these people surrendering or regrouping? Did they leave their vehicles or resist? Maybe you can fill in the blanks for me. Honestly, until you straighten me out, I don’t have any sympathy for Saddam’s thugs.
     
  24. BeeGood, Dec 18, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2018

    BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #25
    To play devils advocate here, the Iraqi troops were leaving with all of their equipment and weapons. No cease fire had been declared and the Iraqis were still fighting, launching SCUD missiles into Tel Aviv even. Like @Huntn is saying, I’m not sure it’s fair to expect the coalition forces to assume they were done fighting when they easily could have been attempting to re-form on the other side of the border.

    At the risk of sounding flippant and dismissive of human suffering, it was a war. Things like this happen in every war by its nature. If you’re going to acknowledge that war is sometimes necessary then you have to accept that people are going to die under some pretty crappy circumstances.
     

Share This Page

57 December 17, 2018