Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
 |
Quote:
Indite BUSH, CHENEY & RUMSFELD on war crimes and gross derelect of duty to the American people and everyone win's !
Posted on: 2008/7/24 9:37
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Just finished watching a great documentary on the Iraq war titled, "No End In Sight."
great film, very informative. it's not one of those bogus 2 hour films on conspiracy theories and what if's, it consists mainly of interviews with very very high government officials who were assigned various responsibilities pertaining to the Iraq war, and the movie focuses primarily on the very beginning of the war and the events that occured right after Saddam was overthrown. The facts that are revealed are quite flooring. This film really reveals how America flat out dropped the ball right from the get-go in Iraq, and how at this point, there really is "no end in sight''. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6182969183854471645 you can use this link to watch the movie for free off the internet. i would imagine there are other websites you can do the same, this is the first one i found.
Posted on: 2008/7/24 8:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
(crickets chirping)
Posted on: 2008/3/8 3:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
How do you propose to win the war ? regardless of how we got into this situation, what will constitute a win?
Posted on: 2008/3/7 20:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
But 678 has to do with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, not with any supposed non-compliance with inspection or possession of WMDs (even assuming we really believed that they had them, which I'm not sure we did). It makes sense that force would be "necessary" to directly repel an invasion of another sovereign state. It is not clear why it was "necessary" in 2003.
Your point about the individual states deciding what is "necessary" is a clever one, I'll give you that. But it seems sort of obvious that that doesn't mean the member states have free reign to do absolutely anything they want and not be held to any sort of standard at all. I know we're beating a dead horse here, but let's not mutilate it too.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 20:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
Doesn't matter we backed him, the fact the guy did it let us know what he was capable of. Quote:
Yes, recalling a previous resolution authorizing member states to use all necessary means. Wouldn't you infer then that the member states could be free in determining what is necessary? Quote:
Right, sovereignty is a huge buzz word in UN. They include that to basically say we recognize you, you're autonomous. You should comply on your own without enforcement, but, if you don't...
Posted on: 2008/3/7 19:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds fifteen years before we invaded Iraq and had not used WMDs since -- by the way, at the time he gassed his own people we fully backed him. I'm not saying he was a particularly nice or reliable guy, but this is hardly a justification for war. 1441 does say "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)" but the operative words are "recalling" and "necessary." The members of the security council did not all agree that so-called preemptive war was "necessary" which is why the war was not backed by the U.N. Of course we can conveniently refer to the U.N. when it serves our purpose and reject it whenever it doesn't, can't we. Further, since 1441 clearly states that it recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq, you can't POSSIBLY read it as authorizing full-on war for regime change. But you strike me as a bright guy, so if you don't understand this you're either not as bright as I thought or you're being purposefully obtuse.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 19:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
First it was trillion, now its trillions spent? You do realize those numbers are estimates if we stay for an additional 2-5 years?
Before anyone changes the subject, or says that's still a lot of money I just want to make this disclaimer in that I am only offering the real amount allocated (not even spent yet). This is from a more reputable source, than some random website. Get your facts straight. "Congress has approved a total of about $700 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans? health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This $700 billion total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001 in supplementals,regular appropriations, and continuing resolutions including not quite half of the FY2008 request." (other half of the request is around 100 billion) From The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 Updated February 8, 2008 Amy Belasco Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Posted on: 2008/3/7 19:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
Diplomacy is always a first choice. However, Saddam had shown in the past he was willing to use chemical weapons on his own people and I guess people thought it was imperative we deal with him before he does something like that again. Quote:
Umm no, I told you I wasn't going to argue with you but your lack of insight on the situation requires me to educate you. I'm sure the administration would have liked to attack North Korea. However, they aren't completely braindead. North Korea has historically been allied with China and Russia. Next to North Korea are Japan and South Korea. Even though Kim Jong Il may seem crazy, I don't think he has used wmd's like Saddam. They also have 1.2 million in their military, whereas Iraq had 400k? If we did go in there, the war would escalate quite easily into the neighboring countries and could start WWIII. Obviously Iraq was the easier target among the axis of evil, regardless of the oil.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 18:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
And diplomacy/ continued international pressure wouldn't have been a better idea?
Again...using this logic we should have invaded N. Korea for the same reason, right? We knew they had nukes, while we were simply speculating in regards to Iraq...and we turned out being horribly, tragically wrong, considering the consequences. Isn't diplomacy working wonders in N. Korea right now without a single dead soldier or civilian on either side?
Posted on: 2008/3/7 18:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
its the 4th paragraph. "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)"
Posted on: 2008/3/7 17:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Funny, I don't see anything in 1441 that directly authorizes war. In fact it directly reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 17:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Resolution 1441, which also recalls Resolution 678
1441 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdf 678 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18076.pdf
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Trillions well spent in Iraq and Afghanistan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
also am i missing something, or werent we able to edit posts before? i can't seem to do it now
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Trillions well spent in Iraq and Afghanistan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
i think the great amount that the war is costing all of us (not just in terms of lives and international appeal, but $$$) is lost on most americans. what sucks is that all candidates support staying there in some way. maybe the dems should carry around huge posters with pie charts or bar graphs showing exactly how much money we're spending on that war.
if we spent even half that amount on something worthwhile (like actually jump starting the economy instead of $500 handouts), the country might start taking a different direction. with the new political situation brewing in s. america, i can see is withdrawing some troops from iraq .. and then sending them to "keep the peace" on the colombian border. 1 step forward.. 2 steps back.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To which resolution are you referring?
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
If the un resolution authorizes member states to use all necessary means, then yes that does mean war. Quote:
No. Only if there was an additional resolution allowing Palestinians to attack Israel for violating UN resolutions.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No. Just because the U.N. resolves something does not mean that it is enforceable by total war and removal of a regime. That is not how the U.N., or indeed any form of law works. By your argument, maybe the Palestinians should be allowed to destroy Israel because it has violated U.N. resolutions.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
IMO you are a cold dude. Sadly I have friends that think like you.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
You are correct, that single battle had almost double the amount of deaths in Iraq. Quote:
I respond with, that's tragic. But if you said, 10 people died from car accidents, we shouldn't drive anymore. I would say that's sad, but to put things in perspective look how many people die from cancer. Quote:
That's laughable! If it's a UN resolution, its what the UN has agreed upon.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
I was referring to the 4000 american casualties. And yes, although it is tragic, shouldn't be the reason to end the war. I included the medical deaths to give another perspective. Quote:
Yes, those were reasons as well. So it's not hard to see why people would see it as provoking us.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think it'd be more relevant to point out that we've killed way more civillians in Iraq alone as a result of *collateral damage* than were killed in the entire world by terrorists during that period.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Trillions well spent in Iraq and Afghanistan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I was reading some sobering reports about how much the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost. Somehow, I get the feeling that this money could have been better spent.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For the record, Brian em did NOT cite the death toll in the battle of Gettysburg, he cited the casualty level. The death toll was something more like 7000 - 8000 total combining BOTH SIDES - admittedly still more than the entire Iraq war for AMERICAN SOLDIER deaths, but nowhere near as many TOTAL DEATHS in the Iraq war if you actually accept the idea that Iraqis are humans.
That aside, bringing this up at all is specious. If 10 people die in a massive car pile-up, do you respond with "Hey, that's nothing! Look how many people die of cancer every year!" Your justifications for the war are laughable - you can't use a U.N. resolution as a reason for doing something that goes even more blatantly against the U.N. and the basic principles of international law. Of course the old Iraqi regime was not so great, but there's such a thing as proportionality, and we've actually made the situation there worse. Now I will concede that I'm honestly not sure at this point whether Iraq would ultimately be better off if we leave or stay. Either way we've made a fine mess of that country and it's nothing to crow about.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
I am not going on another tangent. It is all connected. You are obviously trying to make a point for the war by giving medical stats of how insignificant a few hundred thousand human lives are and giving points of why rational people in 02 would have gone to war. My point is that along with your numerous bullet points of reasons, the main reason our president sold congress on going to war was the non existent link between al queda and iraq. As well as, scaring everyone into believing al queda would have gotten their hands on WMD from Saddam. You are omitting the main factor we went to war (a lie) and saying it has nothing to do with the conversation. Policing the world and nation building has proven to be bad foreign policy in the past. Given the truth the american people and congress IMO would have weighed the decision differently , even if we were provoked by the reasons you listed.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
What's your point? Stop going to another tangent. We were not discussing if the administration lied or not. I was responding to the unprovoked attack statement, and gave reasons why a rational person in 02 would support going into Iraq.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Again, The main reason the American people were sold on going to war was a LIE. http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=144705#forumpost144705
Posted on: 2008/3/7 14:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/9/21 13:53 Last Login : 2015/8/5 3:20 From Jersey City Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
506
|
i'm fine with opposing the war, but does anyone who opposes the war read any website or blog that doesnt lean completely left?
i can point you to a dozen websites of people who are ACTUALLY THERE - whether they are left or right - and even point you to websites and blogs of ACTUAL IRAQIS - who all say the presence is neccessary.... try reading all sides and not just regurgitating facts that are manipulated. and before you freak out - i do NOT support geogre bush.... but do know theres another side that the generally biased media choses to ignore.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 6:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
From the weekly Quad Cinema email newsletter.
http://www.quadcinema.com/ Quad Cinema QUOTE On November 13, 2001 President Bush signed an Executive Order authorizing the U.S. to hold suspected terrorists in INDEFINITE detention. A "reason to believe they were terrorists" was sufficient justification. A year later Bush decided that these detainees should now be OFFICIALLY classified as terrorists and disqualified from prisoner-of-war protection under the Geneva Convention. To add more spice to this edict, Alberto Gonzalez referred to the Geneva Convention as "quaint." Finally, a memo (called the torture memo) was issued on August 2002 which stated that "Certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340 of the Geneva Convention." When filmmaker Alex Gibney (his previous film was ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM) read a New York Times piece by Tim Golden which told about an innocent Afghan taxi driver who died while in custody at Bagram prison in Afghanistan, he knew that this was the story he wanted to tell in his next documentary. What he produced (TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE) won the Academy Award last month and it's opening at the QUAD today. Here is a brief synopsis of the film together with schedules. Also included is a synopsis of another vital documentary opening today, FIGHTING FOR LIFE. TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE: This is the Academy Award winning documentary written, produced, and directed by Alex Gibney. It's a stunning inquiry into the suspicious death of an Afghani taxi driver. It's a well-researched examination of how an innocent civilian was apprehended, imprisoned, tortured and ultimately murdered at the U.S. Bagram air base in 2002. Combining the cool detachment of a forensic expert with the heated indignation of a proud American who holds his country to a high standard, Gibney's film reveals how the Bush administration systematically betrayed the very ideals it professes to uphold. Rated R/Run Time: 1:46 Showtimes: 1:00 3:15 5:30 7:40 10:00 FIGHTING FOR LIFE: This is a powerful, sobering, and emotional documentary about doctors and nurses fighting on the frontlines of battle. The film interweaves 3 stories: (1) doctors and nurses working with skill and compassion during the Iraq War, (2) wounded soldiers and marines reacting with courage, dignity, and determination to survive and heal, and (3) students at USU, the "West Point" of military medicine, on their way to becoming career military physicians. The film follows 21-year old Army Specialist Crystal Davis as she moves from Iraq to Germany and to Walter Reed Hospital as she bounces back from the loss of a leg from an IED blast. What makes the film so vivid is the access the filmmakers had to combat support hospitals, medevac flights with wounded soldiers, and military hospitals in Germany and the United States. Not Rated/Run Time 1:29 Showtimes: 1:00 2:50 4:40 6:30 8:30 10:20 END QUOTEherehere
Posted on: 2008/3/7 5:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57 Last Login : 2017/9/14 20:15 From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
747
|
Quote:
How lovely, another person who likes to change the subject. The OP only stated 4,000 dead. Brian mentioned the outrageous death toll in only 1 battle. The reasons for the deaths are irrelevant. Also we don't need your opinion on if the attack was provoked or unprovoked. Many would argue that: 1. Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions, including violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. 2. His repression of the Iraq people. 3. His support for international terrorism, including an attempt to assassinate a former US president by the Iraqi intelligence service, and the support for Mujehedin el-Khalq, PLF and Abu Nidal terrorist organization. 4. His refusal to account for Gulf War prisoners. 5. His refusal to return property stolen by Iraqi forces. 6. His efforts to circumvent economic sanctions. was provocation enough. Quote:
LOL. Yes, let's just raise our hands in the air and accept it.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 5:31
|
|||
|
||||