TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Costs of the war in Iraq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Costs of the war in Iraq

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
So: Is this report politically motivated (i.e., by the Democrats), or have U.S. citizens been hoodwinked by the current Administration? Or both?

What do you think/feel about the U.S. president being the commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces, but only Congress being able to officially declare war? (Sorry about the capitalization, or lack thereof
- it's politically motivated on my part ).
post #2 of 15
I think its just the start of one nasty campaign bashing in 2008

I wonder how many other wars cost more than what was reported? After all it was easier to burn paper 100 years ago. now everything is documented.

At this point though, we've spent so much money on this war in general, I guess I'm just numb to any "shock" that the news agencies try to add.
post #3 of 15
I might as well state upfront that I am a pacifist by (temperment, not logic), and I was against this war from the outset.

I always felt the Bush administration was lying about the WMDs and Saddam Hassam being this generation's Hitler.

I admit I thought they were after oil, but now realize that war profiteering was the main goal with the oil as a kind of bonus.

It's tragic to realize how many social needs could have been taken care of if the money had been spent that way.

It frightens me to realize our country is more deeply in debt to foreigh debt-holders because of the war.
post #4 of 15
Politically motivated AND hoodwinked. The administration isn't telling us the true cost of the war.....probably because they don't really know. Much of the cost is "hidden" -- it's not included in war appropriations. It's just absorbed by whatever department is involved in providing the service.

I think that the role of the President as Commander in Chief is proper and appropriate, and I think that Congress having the power to declare war is proper and appropriate. It's separation of powers. The problem is that the Executive Branch has been pushing the limits of its powers, and in my opinion, conducting an extended military operation such as has been done in Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war, has pushed the Executive Branch powers way beyond where the founders intended them to be.
post #5 of 15
I'm sorry I didn't answer your questions.

Given how the administration has lied about this war and a lot else besides, how can we trust them to tell us the truth now? I also doubt that the truth about the cost of war is ever given to the public during the war.

I'm happy with the way the separation of powers were written, but ever since Eisenhower fought the Korean War without declaring war, the presidents' have been pushing the envelope and just taking more and more executive power to themselves. This administration hasn't even tried to be cool about the way they've gone about it. They don't even seem to care what the public thinks, they just do whatever. They are colder than ice.
post #6 of 15
The war has cost 1.5 trillion. I don't care about that so much as I care about that entire figure being LOANS. We've spent 1.5 trillion that we don't even have fighting a war for... what? What is this war even about? We've never even gotten a straight answer.

And, lest we forget, the most important cost of all. There have been 4,162 coalition deaths (Iraq only) and 28,451 reported wounded. And, the thousands of Iraqi civilians, whose numbers are really untold.
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
I might as well state upfront that I am a pacifist by (temperment, not logic), and I was against this war from the outset.

I always felt the Bush administration was lying about the WMDs and Saddam Hassam being this generation's Hitler.

I admit I thought they were after oil, but now realize that war profiteering was the main goal with the oil as a kind of bonus.

It's tragic to realize how many social needs could have been taken care of if the money had been spent that way.

It frightens me to realize our country is more deeply in debt to foreigh debt-holders because of the war.
I believe we honestly thought that Sadaam has WMD, as that is the info he put out there to scare Iran as it turns out. I heard even his own Generals thought there was WMD. Refer to my thread, "Confessions of Sadaam"
the FBI agent got Sadaam's confidence. Sadaam's ploy backfired BIG TIME.
I want to read that book.

And yes, I believe the President of the United States should be the Commander in Chief, I also believe one shouldn't be able to be President of the United States AND Commander in Chief also he/she has served in the military.
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
What is this war even about? We've never even gotten a straight answer.

And, lest we forget, the most important cost of all. There have been 4,162 coalition deaths (Iraq only) and 28,451 reported wounded. And, the thousands of Iraqi civilians, whose numbers are really untold.
But I think we have been given a straight answer. We got an answer in the form of a Freudian slip by the President on Sept 16th, 2001.

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while"

Although he and his aides spent the next week desperately explaining that "crusade" wasn't the work he meant to use, I believe myself that he said exactly what he was thinking.
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Although he and his aides spent the next week desperately explaining that "crusade" wasn't the work he meant to use, I believe myself that he said exactly what he was thinking.
Yes, interesting observation. Using the "c" word sure sent a jolt of electricity through the Muslim world.

But what about the Islamist (extremist fundamentalist Muslim) concept of jihad? Isn't that equivalent to a crusade? So who's crusading against whom?

I believe the war on terror is a legitimate war. But I wouldn't call it a crusade. It's a defensive war. It's a war to preserve our way of life from those who would impose their own warped view of how society should be.

I do not believe the war in Iraq was a smart strategic move in that war. The war in Iraq wasn't a necessary battle to fight in the war against terror. As a matter of fact, it has made us more enemies, and sapped our military---which I see as setbacks in the war on terror. It shouldn't have been a part of the war on terror. It was a mistake.
post #10 of 15
I believe that the war began as legitimate, and still is for the most part. But I also think that deep in Bush's borderline psychotic mind, he looks upon himself as a crusading christian soldier. And now he's setting his sights on Iran, and we just do not have, nor can we obtain, the resources to fight on another front.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
So: Is this report politically motivated (i.e., by the Democrats), or have U.S. citizens been hoodwinked by the current Administration? Or both?

What do you think/feel about the U.S. president being the commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces, but only Congress being able to officially declare war?
hoodwinked? i dont know anyone that really trusts the goverment. So i would so no.

hmm well who else would run the armed forces? congress cant even vote to go to the bathroom in time.

well the idea is if congress does not approve of something they can cut money..

I was not a member of the Cat site back when this started, But i always said Iran, korea, or syria would have made much more sense to me.
post #12 of 15
You got that right. Iraq wasn't a threat. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that Osama and his crew steered clear of Iraq because they were afraid of Sadaam. When we took out Sadaam, we opened up Iraq to them.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
You got that right. Iraq wasn't a threat. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that Osama and his crew steered clear of Iraq because they were afraid of Sadaam. When we took out Sadaam, we opened up Iraq to them.
Indeed- they were well-known enemies. Osama considered Saddam an infidel.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Indeed- they were well-known enemies. Osama considered Saddam an infidel.
Yep very true.
post #15 of 15
I think we were hood-winked, and I also think it was motivated by getting control of their oil for greedy purposes, as well as motivaged by revenge. There is NOTHING good about this war.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Costs of the war in Iraq