Study: Iraq War Costs U.S More Than $2 Trillion

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by rivergator

you're blaming the war on the press and the left?

Huh?

No.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I just hope we take it as a lesson for the future:
1. Don't go into a war unless you have a whole lot better reasons than we did in Iraq.
2. Don't go into a war without a whole lot better idea what will happen than we did in Iraq.
3. Don't mislead the American people on 1 and 2.

I would add that we must first identify our true National interests, and once you have identified them, go to war if, and only if, our National interests are threatened.

Saddam was in a cage, we had him contained, and he was no longer a real threat to any of his neighbors. Moreover, while he and the Baath party were in power in Iraq, Iraq was not in danger of falling into the orbit of Iran. In that sense, he served a useful purpose. Going to war did not, in any meaningful way, serve our National interests and in fact I would argue it actually harmed our National interests.

I would note also that if having WMD is really something we are prepared to go to war over, then we would be bombing North Korea and Iran right now.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I would add that we must first identify our true National interests, and once you have identified them, go to war if, and only if, our National interests are threatened.

Saddam was in a cage, we had him contained, and he was no longer a real threat to any of his neighbors. Moreover, while he and the Baath party were in power in Iraq, Iraq was not in danger of falling into the orbit of Iran. In that sense, he served a useful purpose. Going to war did not, in any meaningful way, serve our National interests and in fact I would argue it actually harmed our National interests.

I would note also that if having WMD is really something we are prepared to go to war over, then we would be bombing North Korea and Iran right now.

Agreed. Saddam was a paper tiger, but his loud roar was useful to us. He was also a devil we knew and dealt with before. The only logical conclusion to Saddam's toppling was we'd eventually be dealing with a devil we didn't know, while allowing other anti-American interests to gain a foothold in Iraq. So incredibly stupid.

And if you want to assign blame, Bush and Company has to get the most of it. It was their plan and their belief of an Arab Spring that lead us to war. Democrats that voted for the war deserve their share too, but BushCo was always in the drivers seat for the Iraqi invasion.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I would add that we must first identify our true National interests, and once you have identified them, go to war if, and only if, our National interests are threatened.

Saddam was in a cage, we had him contained, and he was no longer a real threat to any of his neighbors. Moreover, while he and the Baath party were in power in Iraq, Iraq was not in danger of falling into the orbit of Iran. In that sense, he served a useful purpose. Going to war did not, in any meaningful way, serve our National interests and in fact I would argue it actually harmed our National interests.

I would note also that if having WMD is really something we are prepared to go to war over, then we would be bombing North Korea and Iran right now.

Remember that America was sold on the war being told the opposite: That Saddam was a very real threat to us. Remember all the comparisons to Hitler. Stop him now before he overruns the world ...
He couldn't defend his own country for a month, couldn't launch a single plane ....

[108]

from the perspective of the real intention to invade Iraq, my guess it is considered a success by those who perpetrated it

iraq's oil into a western friendly regime, preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the political capital gained by what was hoped to be a successful invasion of a thought-of foe

outside of that, the MIC has really benefited from it, biggest being Halliburton

there is so much information out there that shows that Bush/Cheney were looking for any excuse to go to war with Iraq prior to even getting elected

you have to hope that ambition didn't cause them to neglect warning signs of 9/11

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by 108

with expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

why did we go in there again


Link

I think it has something to do with this Roman-Empire-esque nonsense.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I just hope we take it as a lesson for the future:
1. Don't go into a war unless you have a whole lot better reasons than we did in Iraq.
2. Don't go into a war without a whole lot better idea what will happen than we did in Iraq.
3. Don't mislead the American people on 1 and 2.

Didn't we learn all of this 30 years earlier in Vietnam.

Truly amazing - and sad - not just that history would repeat itself so completely, but that it would repeat itself so soon. Just mind boggling, IMO.

[reformedgator]

That was a bipartisan decision that for better or worse is shared by both sides.

[CHFG8R]

Meh. Given the political climate post 9-11, the (D)s had no choice politically other than to go along with it.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Meh. Given the political climate post 9-11, the (D)s had no choice politically other than to go along with it.

Not because of political climate, but because Washington is full of a bunch of followers and not leaders.

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I would add that we must first identify our true National interests, and once you have identified them, go to war if, and only if, our National interests are threatened.

George Washington said virtually the same thing- "All Foreign entanglements are governed by self interest."

You are right that Sadaam was in a box and was a check on Iran. I made a crack above about the rhetoric of how we supposedly went to war for oil... Oil? That at least would have been a self interest.

The use of the the United States military in combat has lost its grounding. Presidents do not seek declarations of war anymore. They use the military as if they were a private army. The senate and house seem happy to seed the power to the potus as cover in case things go poorly. The senate and house have no balls. The military is more than ever a pawn on the political chess board of both parties. Plausible deniability if things go poorly and tacit assent if they go well. That is modern day leadership. Sun Tzu is rolling over in his grave laughing at us.

[SECund2nun]

Originally Posted by gator421

Harder to get out once your in.

Judging by Obama's actions of bombing many countries...I'd say he leans toward war monger....he is a flat out war monger actually and he also supports the patriot act.

Bush= Obama= Clinton= Gore= Romney= McCain etc

They are all the same. The top of both parties are controlled by the same people.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Didn't we learn all of this 30 years earlier in Vietnam.

Truly amazing - and sad - not just that history would repeat itself so completely, but that it would repeat itself so soon. Just mind boggling, IMO.

+1

One of the reasons I was happy to see Hagel get SoD - not that he'll decide foreign policy, but be one voice in decisions - was he personally experienced VN and knows what a waste both of these wars were and was independent minded enough to admit he had been wrong on Iraq when we were still in it hot and heavy.

It's amazing and greatly depressing that only 1 generation after VN we did essentially the same thing in Iraq.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

George Washington said virtually the same thing- "All Foreign entanglements are governed by self interest."

You are right that Sadaam was in a box and was a check on Iran. I made a crack above about the rhetoric of how we supposedly went to war for oil... Oil? That at least would have been a self interest.
The use of the the United States military in combat has lost its grounding. Presidents do not seek declarations of war anymore. They use the military as if they were a private army. The senate and house seem happy to seed the power to the potus as cover in case things go poorly. The senate and house have no balls. The military is more than ever a pawn on the political chess board of both parties. Plausible deniability if things go poorly and tacit assent if they go well. That is modern day leadership. Sun Tzu is rolling over in his grave laughing at us.

That is, for all intents and purposes, why we went. The rest is the rationalization. But in reality, would we even give a shit what happens over there if it wasn't for the oil. Tell you what, why don't we ask the Ruwandans.

[jimgata]

Let's see, 6 trillion deficit las 4 years, 2 trillion for the war last 10 years. Raise hell.

[108]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Let's see, 6 trillion deficit las 4 years, 2 trillion for the war last 10 years. Raise hell.

Debt by choice versus debt by necessity

And wouldn't you know, the same person could have prevented both

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by 108

Debt by choice, debt by necessity

And wouldn't you know, the same person could have prevented both

By choice?

You got to be kidding.

A good bit of the gov't spending is unconstitutional. Many of the taxes and fees we pay are taxation without representation. I am referring to the illegal use of Czars that make/enforce policy, levy fees (taxes) illegally, and trample on state rights.

[g8orbill]

personally, I think it is time to walk away and cut our losses in both Iraq and Afghanistan

I am not much for Nation building and inserting ourselves in other countries civil wars

with our debt what it is and so many looking for ways to cut the military-closing some foriegn bases and bringing troops home would solve some of that spending

[jimgata]

Necissity? The only thing necessary was jobs and what jobs has 6 trillion created?

[BobK89]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Remember that America was sold on the war being told the opposite: That Saddam was a very real threat to us. Remember all the comparisons to Hitler. Stop him now before he overruns the world ...
He couldn't defend his own country for a month, couldn't launch a single plane ....

Saddam was a megalomanic. He had plans to conquer Iran, but nine years of war ended that. Then he went after Kuwait, and the international coalition kicked him out and neutered him.

He wanted control over the Middle East, but his Republican Guard couldn't deliver what he wanted.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry