Cost of Iraq war

[XxDualityxX]

I saw an article on here about the cost of iraq war and compared it to wwII and all the other wars and was just wondering if you guys remember the title of it.

[kaspur_eh]

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer1-23-06.gif


Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the “escalating cost of the war.” Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.

Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).

This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.

The work is not done in Iraq, and the financial costs will grow beyond the $251 billion we have spent so far. The real cost, of course, is in human lives, manifested in the debate about whether it is worth losing a few thousand American lives in order to liberate 23 million people. But the data are clear; any attempt to discredit this war based on its effect on the U.S. economy is an unnecessary distraction.

that?

[XxDualityxX]

Yeah thanks and this is legit right.

[Belrick]

I still laugh at the arrogance involved to claim foreign troops are liberators when they overthrew an Iraqi leader by killing Iraqi soldiers while only holding onto control of the country these last 3 years by killing Iraqi civilians aka insurgents who are attempting to fight a regime change that is ensured to be beneficial to an overseas power!

LOL.

[Kersh]

I still laugh at the arrogance involved to claim foreign troops are liberators when they overthrew an Iraqi leader by killing Iraqi soldiers while only holding onto control of the country these last 3 years by killing Iraqi civilians aka insurgents who are attempting to fight a regime change that is ensured to be beneficial to an overseas power!

LOL.

LOL You're just a regular f*cking Einstein aren't you? You want us to just leave and see what these "Iraqi civilians aka insurgents" will do to the country once the US and its allies are gone? Nice way to not only hijack a topic, but to also troll like f*cking hell. I hope you get banned.

[Belrick]

Perhaps once they are left alone they will build THERE country in there own image?
OMG what a concept, quick someone go write to the King of England claiming that perhaps the colonists of America are capable of forming there own nation afterall!

ps: I'm glad i touched a nerve, you post BS you deserve to have your face rubbed in it. While we are at it why not actually try and prove me wrong and show that in fact US troops are lliberators and not conquerors?
Because you cant so you resort to ad hominum attacks.

[Apathy]

Perhaps once they are left alone they will build THERE country in there own image?
OMG what a concept, quick someone go write to the King of England claiming that perhaps the colonists of America are capable of forming there own nation afterall!

Or maybe a civil war will erupt, more civilians die, and then you'll blame the US for NOT helping the Iraqis. OH SNAP!!!1111111

[XxDualityxX]

I still laugh at the arrogance involved to claim foreign troops are liberators when they overthrew an Iraqi leader by killing Iraqi soldiers while only holding onto control of the country these last 3 years by killing Iraqi civilians aka insurgents who are attempting to fight a regime change that is ensured to be beneficial to an overseas power!

LOL.

Go back to masturbating douchebag seriosuly arrogant commentsl like that are not needed in this thread now shut the fu** up an leave.

[Apathy]

ps: I'm glad i touched a nerve, you post BS you deserve to have your face rubbed in it. While we are at it why not actually try and prove me wrong and show that in fact US troops are lliberators and not conquerors?
Because you cant so you resort to ad hominum attacks.

Um...US troops never did anything except liberate a country. Sure we give them money and some food, but the country is suppose to rebuild itself. Look at Japan and Germany after World War 2. We practically destroyed them and then we gave them a sh*tload of money to rebuild their country.

America may bring the horse to the water, but the horse is the one that has to drink.

[Apathy]

I still laugh at the arrogance involved to claim foreign troops are liberators when they overthrew an Iraqi leader by killing Iraqi soldiers while only holding onto control of the country these last 3 years by killing Iraqi civilians aka insurgents who are attempting to fight a regime change that is ensured to be beneficial to an overseas power!

LOL.

Foreign troops liberated my parent's country from Japanese rule. If it wasn't for the US, i'd be speaking Japanese right now.

The US doesn't kill Iraqi civilians intentionally. If you want to see intentional killing, you should see what Saddam did during the 80s. He gassed his own people, but of course you don't want to remember that because that doesn't further your own personal agenda.

Yes, the regime has changed, but it was elected by the Iraqi people in an election last December.

[DaveDash]

Perhaps once they are left alone they will build THERE country in there own image?
OMG what a concept, quick someone go write to the King of England claiming that perhaps the colonists of America are capable of forming there own nation afterall!

ps: I'm glad i touched a nerve, you post BS you deserve to have your face rubbed in it. While we are at it why not actually try and prove me wrong and show that in fact US troops are lliberators and not conquerors?
Because you cant so you resort to ad hominum attacks.

If you think the United States are conquerers you obviously need to take a look back through history.

You're also not very bright, arn't you?

Right now Iraq is going through difficulties BECAUSE the United States is letting them make their own way.

They could install their own governer ala the Romans and rule the country by brute force - but that's no different to Saddam - and they're better than that.

Real conquerers, Alexander, The Romans, etc, would probably start massacering Iraqi trouble towns like Fallujah when trouble began, and crucify them along the Tigris, instead of letting the civilians clear out at the expense of letting the ringleaders get away, reconstructing the city afterwards, and so forth.

[Dalamara]

If you think the United States are conquerers you obviously need to take a look back through history.

You're also not very bright, arn't you?

Right now Iraq is going through difficulties BECAUSE the United States is letting them make their own way.

They could install their own governer ala the Romans and rule the country by brute force - but that's no different to Saddam - and they're better than that.

Real conquerers, Alexander, The Romans, etc, would probably start massacering Iraqi trouble towns like Fallujah when trouble began, and crucify them along the Tigris, instead of letting the civilians clear out at the expense of letting the ringleaders get away, reconstructing the city afterwards, and so forth.

Truth.

The only reason insurgents wern't attacking Saddam's forces was because Saddam would kill their families and gas their villages.

We could stop the in-fighting with the same terror that Saddam used, but then that defeats the purpose of this whole war.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

US troops are what they are. Their function is to carry out the foreign policy of the US. If you don't like the US, you probably won't like what our troops do. What you decide to call them is a question of semantics which stems from the point of view of the speaker. I doubt very much that Saddam, Hitler, or Hirohito would have called them liberators either, which puts Belrick in good company.

I just wonder what people sharing Belrick's POV would have the UN do about Iran. Iran is a wonderful exercise for them, since their modus operandi is simply to automatically oppose anything done by the governments they dislike so much.

[Belrick]

Foreign troops liberated my parent's country from Japanese rule. If it wasn't for the US, i'd be speaking Japanese right now.

The US doesn't kill Iraqi civilians intentionally. If you want to see intentional killing, you should see what Saddam did during the 80s. He gassed his own people, but of course you don't want to remember that because that doesn't further your own personal agenda.

Yes, the regime has changed, but it was elected by the Iraqi people in an election last December.

You are talking about an event that happened 60years ago. Talk about comparing apples to oranges.
1: Japan was the aggessor in WW2
2: America was the aggressor in Iraq
3: Iraqi troops were defending there country
4: Japanese were holding your country.

No matter how bad we westerners view that creep SH that doesnt excuse the fact of reality that Americans came as conquerors not liberators. As for the election are you forgetting that GWB said publicly he would remove any president that he found undesirable?

[Hollis]

a stupid concept, What would be the cost if we (USA) did not?

[DaveDash]

No matter how bad we westerners view that creep SH that doesnt excuse the fact of reality that Americans came as conquerors not liberators. As for the election are you forgetting that GWB said publicly he would remove any president that he found undesirable?

Source. I wave the bull**** flag.

[Belrick]

If you think the United States are conquerers you obviously need to take a look back through history.

You're also not very bright, arn't you?

Right now Iraq is going through difficulties BECAUSE the United States is letting them make their own way.

They could install their own governer ala the Romans and rule the country by brute force - but that's no different to Saddam - and they're better than that.

Real conquerers, Alexander, The Romans, etc, would probably start massacering Iraqi trouble towns like Fallujah when trouble began, and crucify them along the Tigris, instead of letting the civilians clear out at the expense of letting the ringleaders get away, reconstructing the city afterwards, and so forth.

So bright spark you drive your car by looking at the rear view mirror? Well gee if there was no car in history behind me there will be none in the front.

Or how about this. Just because Americans were the good guys (liberators) in WW2 PREVENTS them by some magical mystical force of being the conquerors in Iraq????????

So your also saying that because the 30,000 plus Iraq civilians who have died due to the invasion as collatoral damage then thats ok whereas thousands killed is completely different?

Americans installed a puppet goverment, yes so much better than direct rule :\

[Dalamara]

Source. I wave the bull**** flag.

$12.47 trillion (2005 est.)

250,000,000 / 12,470,000,000 = 2.0048%

Source: Math.

[DaveDash]

Or how about this. Just because Americans were the good guys (liberators) in WW2 PREVENTS them by some magical mystical force of being the conquerors in Iraq????????

Irrelevent to what I was saying.



So your also saying that because the 30,000 plus Iraq civilians who have died due to the invasion as collatoral damage then thats ok whereas thousands killed is completely different?

Most credible reports I have read cite that around 6000 Iraqis died due to the invasion. The vast majority of casualties have come from the insurgency targetting civilian targets.



Americans installed a puppet goverment, yes so much better than direct rule :\

Where is your proof of this? As far as I saw the Iraqis voted, and the country is now in a crisis because the Americans are NOT installing their own puppet government.

You are making baseless claims. Bring some proof to the table, or stop wasting everyones bandwidth.

[Belrick]

Go back to masturbating douchebag seriosuly arrogant commentsl like that are not needed in this thread now shut the fu** up an leave.

Nice, i enjoy debating with intellects such as yourself who are capable of debates without resorting to mud flinging. Though i'm sure the mods will warn you for your personnal attacks and language.
LOL

[DaveDash]

$12.47 trillion (2005 est.)

250,000,000 / 12,470,000,000 = 2.0048%

Source: Math.

Did you miss the quote?

I wanted a source on his claim that President Bush would remove any elected leader that he did not like.

The worst I heard was the United States ambassador saying that the United States reserved the right to remove aid, which is something completely different.

[Belrick]

Source. I wave the bull**** flag.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-wants-jaafari-to-resign-says-mp/2006/03/29/1143441214632.html

Do a search, most papers ran this story.

[Dalamara]

Hm. I guess I didn't. Weird how could I miss that, lol my bad.

[DaveDash]

Nice, i enjoy debating with intellects such as yourself who are capable of debates without resorting to mud flinging. Though i'm sure the mods will warn you for your personnal attacks and language.
LOL

Don't flatter yourself and call this debating.

Debates usually are structured intelligent arguments with proof to back them up.

At the moment, you're just throwing around radical and baseless views born out of some cult hip hatred of the United States that is popular in countries like New Zealand.

[DaveDash]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-wants-jaafari-to-resign-says-mp/2006/03/29/1143441214632.html

Do a search, most papers ran this story.

1. There is no proof in that article.
2. There is no mention of President Bush removing anybody. The claim - in the paper - is "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept". Mr Bush is entitled to his opinion, at the moment I see no evidence of the United States removing anybody from power.

Big Deal.

[Hollis]

I thought I posted it on this thread..........


What would be the cost if we had not gone? I think much, much more...............................

Like seat belts on a car............ one never realize how much they are worth. even after a accident.

Hint: Chamberlan recompitulated with the nazis, and up to 100 Million people died because of that.

[Belrick]

Irrelevent to what I was saying.

Most credible reports I have read cite that around 6000 Iraqis died due to the invasion. The vast majority of casualties have come from the insurgency targetting civilian targets.

Where is your proof of this? As far as I saw the Iraqis voted, and the country is now in a crisis because the Americans are NOT installing their own puppet government.

You are making baseless claims. Bring some proof to the table, or stop wasting everyones bandwidth.

Irrelevent to what I was saying.

Now thats BS, my reply pwned your silly ars e statement now your running. Stand and fight, be a man, take the blow to your pride. You spoke dribble. Admit it.

The Iraqis voted, yes. But did you ask yourself was there not already an American appointed goverment already inplace prior to the elections?

Do you somehow think that America, after all the massive investment into conquering, subdueing and rebuilding Iraq had no intention of having any involvement over the Iraqi goverment and how Iraq is run?

Say, could the Iraqi's switch back to using the Euro for its oil trading? Could Iraq possibly honour the oil explotation contracts with the pre-war ones with Germany, France, China and Russia? (you know, the ones that got inadvertantly torn up and replaced with pro-US et al ones.

[Belrick]

I thought I posted it on this thread..........


What would be the cost if we had not gone? I think much, much more...............................

Like seat belts on a car............ one never realize how much they are worth. even after a accident.

Hint: Chamberlan recompitulated with the nazis, and up to 100 Million people died because of that.


Unless im mistaken it was the US that invaded Iraq and not the other way around and as you well know, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.

[Dalamara]

Belrick is a fine example of what ignorance and propaganda does to a person.

[Belrick]

1. There is no proof in that article.
2. There is no mention of President Bush removing anybody. The claim - in the paper - is "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept". Mr Bush is entitled to his opinion, at the moment I see no evidence of the United States removing anybody from power.

Big Deal.

Oh yes.
So.
Hypothetically.

If you planned within your company of promoting yourself to CEO and the most powerful man in the world said that that would not be tolerated then such a speech would have no effect upon any decisions made to company promotions?

[DaveDash]

The Iraqis voted, yes. But did you ask yourself was there not already an American appointed goverment already inplace prior to the elections?

Prior to the elections yes. The key word that you're missing here, is they have had free elections to vote in a leader that clearly isn't in the United States good graces, completely disproving your point.



Do you somehow think that America, after all the massive investment into conquering, subdueing and rebuilding Iraq had no intention of having any involvement over the Iraqi goverment and how Iraq is run?

Of course they have a say. They provide much of the $ and security forces.

The U.S. also pumps a lot of money into Israel and Egypt, but it isn't conquering those nations now is it?



Say, could the Iraqi's switch back to using the Euro for its oil trading? Could Iraq possibly honour the oil explotation contracts with the pre-war ones with Germany, France, China and Russia? (you know, the ones that got inadvertantly torn up and replaced with pro-US et al ones.

OPEC nations trade in the dollar.

As for the second part of your claim, while the United States has its hand firmly in the pie (as it should do, it's fronting the bill after all), the new Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon.

So the simpe answer to your question is Yes.

[DaveDash]

Oh yes.
So.
Hypothetically.

If you planned within your company of promoting yourself to CEO and the most powerful man in the world said that that would not be tolerated then such a speech would have no effect upon any decisions made to company promotions?

Quote where he said it wouldn't be tolerated.

The 'most powerful man in the world' didn't say this. According to an article the U.S. ambassador passed on a personal message to the Iraqi leadership.

That's a far cry from your original claim that Mr Bush would remove whoever was elected if he didn't like him.

Let's not try and wriggle out of this one

[Kersh]

I think Dave has pretty much taken it away. Not much for me to say here, its somewhat like arguing with a brick wall, except a brick wall has more reason. Oh and Belrick, I have yet to see any proof other than YOU attacking DaveDash. Whos the one who is running scared now?

[DaveDash]

Unless im mistaken it was the US that invaded Iraq and not the other way around and as you well know, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.

Actually, you are mistaken.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 which began the war, between 1991 and 2003 the United States and Iraq had a cease-fire, but the war continued on with almost daily airstrikes and return fire. It just wasn't all over your TV screens so you didn't really care, did you?

2003 was not the start of this war, it was the start of a new operation.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, apart from Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. :roll:

[Belrick]

Actually, you are mistaken.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 which began the war, between 1991 and 2003 the United States and Iraq had a cease-fire, but the war continued on with almost daily airstrikes and return fire. It just wasn't all over your TV screens so you didn't really care, did you?

2003 was not the start of this war, it was the start of a new operation.

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, apart from Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. :roll:


So... In your mind.
The gulf war and the 2003 invasion are the same events? WOW.

Hey do you also think that because Alexander invaded India then India now has the right to conquer the FYRoM?
Nice, unlimited casus belli's :D Man you should of been the one selling the Iraqi 2003 invasion, wouldn't of needed the whole WMD propaganda mess.

"My fellow americans, because Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait 12 years ago we are going to return the favour".
Sold!

[Belrick]

Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, apart from Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Now i won't get into a debate with you about whether or not the WMD-less debilitated army of Iraq that in part folded in a few days by a few well placed bribes was a threat to anyone but you have certainly opened a can of worms which is you infering that it's ok to launch pre-emptive strikes such as Pearl Harbour, barbarossa, 6 day war etc.

[usmajunk]

actually, the no-fly zone had almost daily contact. lots of shooting.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

yeah, this is really way too angry of a debate.

but really, lets be honest, the cost of this war has been inflated by the media. The real cost in America has been political, the rally GW enjoyed after 911 was dissappated because of this.

[Belrick]

No pro-Iraqi conquest supporter has yet (despite the chest thumping, bluster and spittle from indignation) solved the orginal riddle.

How on earth can invading troops of a foreign nationality fighting and killing the troops of a sovereign nation be called 'liberators'?

France, 1944. Germans resisted the allies freeing french people. ie; liberators.
Peninsula war, 1806, French resisting British troops freeing the spanish. ie: liberators.
etc etc.

You can prove me wrong by stating that in fact Iraq that Iraq was under the thrall of Hessian mercenaries and not Iraqi troops. I dont think by any definition troops freeing iraqi's from iraqi's to be placed under the rule of said troops is 'liberation'.

Otherwise it's great propaganda i'll grant you that.

Even if you convince me, you will have to admit that the most important people to convince of your liberation propaganda are currently resisting your efforts with considerable, violent struggles.

[Belrick]

actually, the no-fly zone had almost daily contact. lots of shooting.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

yeah, this is really way too angry of a debate.

but really, lets be honest, the cost of this war has been inflated by the media. The real cost in America has been political, the rally GW enjoyed after 911 was dissappated because of this.


I'm not argueing that.
SH wasn't a bad guy.
That he was resentful of the cease fire and resisted it by whatever means.
etc.

[Ea$y-8]

No matter how bad we westerners view that creep SH that doesnt excuse the fact of reality that Americans came as conquerors not liberators. As for the election are you forgetting that GWB said publicly he would remove any president that he found undesirable?

Saddam killed more Iraqis than the US. We freed Iraq from Saddam's rule. Now they are well on there way to having a free gov. and basic human rights.

[Hollis]

Belrick, the USA gave a wonderful gift to the Iraqis, right now the USA is trying to help the Iraqi not to squander that gift.......... Who knows maybe they will and revert back to something as sick as saddam. and you you will be happy, because you can find something more to complain about the USA as more people suffer.

What a fool you are.

[praetorian6]

No pro-Iraqi conquest supporter has yet (despite the chest thumping, bluster and spittle from indignation) solved the orginal riddle.

How on earth can invading troops of a foreign nationality fighting and killing the troops of a sovereign nation be called 'liberators'?

France, 1944. Germans resisted the allies freeing french people. ie; liberators.
Peninsula war, 1806, French resisting British troops freeing the spanish. ie: liberators.
etc etc.

You can prove me wrong by stating that in fact Iraq that Iraq was under the thrall of Hessian mercenaries and not Iraqi troops. I dont think by any definition troops freeing iraqi's from iraqi's to be placed under the rule of said troops is 'liberation'.

Otherwise it's great propaganda i'll grant you that.

Even if you convince me, you will have to admit that the most important people to convince of your liberation propaganda are currently resisting your efforts with considerable, violent struggles.

Pssst...Belrick, your ignorance is showing...*giggles and points finger*

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I just wonder what people sharing Belrick's POV would have the UN do about Iran. Iran is a wonderful exercise for them, since their modus operandi is simply to automatically oppose anything done by the governments they dislike so much.

That's easy leave 'em alone. If they want to spend loads of money on weapons let them - it's good enough for us and the Israelis isn't it. If they get nukes then so what we have plenty of them too. A new equilibrium will be achieved in the world.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I thought the whole point was that the Iraqis were supposed to finance the war themselves anyway

[Apathy]

That's easy leave 'em alone. If they want to spend loads of money on weapons let them - it's good enough for us and the Israelis isn't it. If they get nukes then so what we have plenty of them too. A new equilibrium will be achieved in the world.

Or another arms race will start and billions of dollars will be diverted to making and developing weapons.

[Apathy]

Belrick, the USA gave a wonderful gift to the Iraqis, right now the USA is trying to help the Iraqi not to squander that gift.......... Who knows maybe they will and revert back to something as sick as saddam. and you you will be happy, because you can find something more to complain about the USA as more people suffer.

What a fool you are.

Today, you will complain of how the US has done too much in Iraq. Tommorow, you will complain about how the US has done too little in Iraq.

:|

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Or another arms race will start and billions of dollars will be diverted to making and developing weapons.

Well as a filthy thieving amoral capitalist I'll know which companies to invest in then :)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Oh lord amighty this is just the same old 7th grade civics class argument over and over again.

1. Straw man argument - they argue against a false version of history (Iraq was peaceful and law-abiding and the US/UK attacked for no reason)
2. Appeal to belief - they argue against the pop-culture/mass-media version or reality (i.e. Bush lied)
3. Appeal to emotion - unfavorable emotions are tied to the war, therefore the war is wrong.

When I presented Belrick the opportunity to outline his action plan for Iran, he declined. I'm guessing it's because he would probably have to formulate what's called a "special pleading" - he would have to somehow explain why we should do something in Iran that he cannot accept that we did for Iraq. Not an easy task - but I do wish he would try p-) . The alternative is that he would have to state that under no circumstances could the UN threaten violence against Iran to force the IAEA inspections. That's a valid position of course, but not one that will find much traction here.

[Hollis]

Today, you will complain of how the US has done too much in Iraq. Tommorow, you will complain about how the US has done too little in Iraq.

:|

Not sure how to read that, you must be refering to Belrick.

[Hollis]

Well as a filthy thieving amoral capitalist I'll know which companies to invest in then :)

hate to break the news to you, the cold war is over.. the commie lost....... the free market won, look at the Chinese they got over run by free marketeers...... Commies and free marketeers are buddies now. :hug:

Put down that book by Lenin and pick up the Wallstreet Journal.........

BTW the term capitalism is a bit passe'. The capital market is only one part of the Free Market..

[Apathy]

Not sure how to read that, you must be refering to Belrick.

Yes, I was referring to Belrick. Sorry for any confusions.

[Apathy]

Oh lord amighty this is just the same old 7th grade civics class argument over and over again.

1. Straw man argument - they argue against a false version of history (Iraq was peaceful and law-abiding and the US/UK attacked for no reason)
2. Appeal to belief - they argue against the pop-culture/mass-media version or reality (i.e. Bush lied)
3. Appeal to emotion - unfavorable emotions are tied to the war, therefore the war is wrong.

When I presented Belrick the opportunity to outline his action plan for Iran, he declined. I'm guessing it's because he would probably have to formulate what's called a "special pleading" - he would have to somehow explain why we should do something in Iran that he cannot accept that we did for Iraq. Not an easy task - but I do wish he would try p-) . The alternative is that he would have to state that under no circumstances could the UN threaten violence against Iran to force the IAEA inspections. That's a valid position of course, but not one that will find much traction here.

I'd like a response to this.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

hate to break the news to you, the cold war is over.. the commie lost....... the free market won, look at the Chinese they got over run by free marketeers...... Commies and free marketeers are buddies now. :hug:

Put down that book by Lenin and pick up the Wallstreet Journal.........

BTW the term capitalism is a bit passe'. The capital market is only one part of the Free Market..

I was being sarcastic - now who's being a bit slow today ;-)

[Apathy]

Well as a filthy thieving amoral capitalist I'll know which companies to invest in then :)

You're gonna invest in Poland?

[Hollis]

Yes, I was referring to Belrick. Sorry for any confusions.

No problems, people like belrick really doesnot care about people or doing the right thing, just complaining and fault finding. They do not add to improving the world but add to the misery.

While we may not all agree on the best way to accomplish adding freedom to the world, I think we agree that a world with more freedom in it will add to global peace and prosperity. As long as we have thug groups and repressive government control, cohercing, manipulating people, turmoil will continue and the world will be a little worse off because of it.

Old 1960's saying, "you are either part of the problem or part of solution." Belrick is a part of the problem. I think we have a great opportunity, the first big one in my life time. The END of the cold war. Hopefully we can used the resources to build and add to the quality of life for all people globally, raise the standard of living, personal freedom, health, education, and eliminate oppression. But we still have to over come petty nationalism, self serving interest by some leaders, corruption on a major scale.

[Hollis]

I was being sarcastic - now who's being a bit slow today ;-)

OK OK, I'll get another cup of Java.. OPPS this is my first cup, more to follow, mia coupa

[Digital Marine]

No pro-Iraqi conquest supporter has yet (despite the chest thumping, bluster and spittle from indignation) solved the orginal riddle.

How on earth can invading troops of a foreign nationality fighting and killing the troops of a sovereign nation be called 'liberators'?



If the troops are under the command of a dictator... then yes, they can be called ''liberators''


Remember the thousands and thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering.... Hmmmn, isn't that weird? I guess they didn't want to fight in the name of the leader of their sovereign country. Mr.Hussein

[Atlantic Friend]

Interesting. Does the chart represent the complete cost of the war expressed as a fraction of the US GNP of that time, or does it reprensent the cost of war that American taxpayers really had to pay (after deduction of, say, French subsidies during the War of Independence, or of Kuwait, Germany and Japan in Gulf War 1 ?)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

OK OK, I'll get another cup of Java.. OPPS this is my first cup, more to follow, mia coupa
I know exactly how you feel :) I'm a waste of space until I've had my first mug of black coffee every morning. Many would say I'm a waste of space after that as well though

[Kersh]

Where oh where has Belrick run off to?

[Apathy]

Where oh where has Belrick run off to?

He has disappeared up his own asshole.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I still laugh at the arrogance involved to claim foreign troops are liberators when they overthrew an Iraqi leader by killing Iraqi soldiers while only holding onto control of the country these last 3 years by killing Iraqi civilians aka insurgents who are attempting to fight a regime change that is ensured to be beneficial to an overseas power!

LOL.

Wouldn’t the term liberator or Invader really depend on which Iraqi you ask? Also what’s the opinion of all Iraqi’s as a whole? If a majority of Iraqi’s felt liberated by the US would you stop feeling so sarcastic or continue to harp anti US/Bush/Preemption jargon? If not, how many would be enough to change your opinion; all, none or something in between or is it really that you have some other gripe your beating about the bush? ;-)

[Apathy]

Wouldn’t the term liberator or Invader really depend on which Iraqi you ask? Also what’s the opinion of all Iraqi’s as a whole? If a majority of Iraqi’s felt liberated by the US would you stop feeling so sarcastic or continue to harp anti US/Bush/Preemption jargon? If not, how many would be enough to change your opinion; all, none or something in between or is it really that you have some other gripe your beating about the bush? ;-)

Doesn't matter what they think. Blaming or loving the US will not rebuild their nation. They need to stop thinking about such trivial things and just rebuild their nation. When that's done, they can say whatever the hell they want about the US.

[Pigdog]

Regardless of the percentage of GNP a lot of money has been spent, many would say wasted in Iraq, not to mention lives. Money that could have been better spent at home in my opinion. Iraq was attacked under the premise of "protecting America" which ironically has served to embolden others to seek nuclear tech. and beef up their defenses. N. Korea has set an example that Iran is now following, a trend that will likely continue once the US and UN both prove themselves to be completely impotent when it comes to preventing this.

[DaveDash]

Regardless of the percentage of GNP a lot of money has been spent, many would say wasted in Iraq, not to mention lives. Money that could have been better spent at home in my opinion. Iraq was attacked under the premise of "protecting America" which ironically has served to embolden others to seek nuclear tech. and beef up their defenses. N. Korea has set an example that Iran is now following, a trend that will likely continue once the US and UN both prove themselves to be completely impotent when it comes to preventing this.

Both countries started their nuclear ambition before Iraq was invaded.

North Korea in particular was allowed to develop Nuclear Weapons because the former administration was asleep at the wheel.

What Iraq has done (and for the record I do not actually think the war was a smart idea now. I can see the reasoning for it however) has made a central front on the war on terror that isn't at home, so U.S. soldiers can take the fight to the enemy instead of U.S. emergency services cleaning up civilians at home.

Removing Saddam from Iraq has, in fact, made America safer. No doubt about it. However Saddam wasn't the major threat to America it seems, most of his WMD claims ended up being false - something that fooled a lot of western intelligence agencies.

The simple fact is sitting around doing nothing about the situation didn't help, in fact, made it worse (first WTC bombings to 9/11). There were far more devistating terrorist attacks on the United States when they were sitting on their asses doing nothing.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, so they might as well do something.

As for the money spent, well, money comes and goes. Id rather see money spent on cleaning up Iraq and staying there till the job is done than something like Somalia where soldiers from across the globe lost their lives only for the west to abandon the mission.