Originally Posted By ecdc >>There were costs involved in "containing" Saddam.<< Not 250 million a day. Not at the expense of giving children health care, securing our borders or our airports, etc. We contained him for many years and that worked just fine. Apparently Saddam and Darth Vader formed a secret alliance when Bush became President that made it so we just have to take him out now, the cost be damned.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj We don't even know the true cost of the war in Iraq -- considering that we haven't even paid for it yet. All we've done is borrow the money.
Originally Posted By barboy I blame the democrats equal to or more than the the Bushmen for squandering money. The democrats acted so spineless after 911. Instead of checking King George II they gave him the keys to car stupidly thinking he was a safe driver or worse too scared to say "no" fearing a political backlash due to all of the heightened nationalistic bravado and frenzy in a post 911 day. And now that the car is all banged up these gutless democrats won't accept blame.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's a safe bet that he's cookin' on something big too.> Unless he's dead. That would explain why we haven't heard from him in years.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We don't even know the true cost of the war in Iraq -- considering that we haven't even paid for it yet.> Nor do we know what the benefit will be.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Nor do we know what the benefit will be.<< Huh? I thought the benefit was planting the seeds of Democracy in the middle east. Giving us a solid ally in a region critical to US interests. Liberating the Iraqi people. Wiping out Saddam's WMDs. If we don't know what the benefit would be, why in the world did we go to war? The fact is, we do, but now since the benchmarks the White House set a couple of years ago to measure the success of this war are proving increasingly elusive and unlikely to materialize, it's suddenly "we don't know what the benefits will be"? Aye carumba.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think the lofty (and naive) goals of democracy flowering throughout the middle east have pretty much disappeared except among the deluded, and they'll be pretty happy if we get out of there with stability. Part of me thinks Bush's real goal now is that it not all fall apart by the fall of 2008; if the big plunge south happens under his successor (especially if the successor is a Democrat), the neocons can blame him, rather than asking if invading was wise to begin with.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan One good thing has come out of all this -- by 2008, neocons and the PNAC crowd will pretty much be left on the sidelines of American politics. They've had their day, we'll all be paying dearly for it for years to come. But they've screwed up so badly that the word 'neocon' will be as politically toxic as the word 'liberal' used to be.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Not at the expense of giving children health care, securing our borders or our airports, etc" I completely agree with the idea that money spent on some government activities seems absurd compared with what other things could be funded with that same money. But it is really the height of naivety to think that if money were suddenly not spent for purpose A, it would suddenly go towards purpose B. It doesn't work that way, and it's just silly to say things like "the money that bought those battleships could have fed the homeless." This is a common tactic of antiwar, anti-government, anti-corporate protestors, who apparently really believe that if we eliminate some budget item they find distasteful, then all this money is going to be sitting there in a pile and we can simply redirect it to some humanitarian cause that we all would love to see funded.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Right, the government will still take the money and waste it and line their own pockets. I don't think it's silly to think that this is wrong. It does seem kind of silly to make it sound like some sort of hippie dream that the govt. would spend the money on making America better.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<This is a common tactic of antiwar, anti-government, anti-corporate protestors, who apparently really believe that if we eliminate some budget item they find distasteful, then all this money is going to be sitting there in a pile and we can simply redirect it to some humanitarian cause that we all would love to see funded>> Hey, YOUR guys are in office...doesn't sound like you have much confidence in them doing the right thing either.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 They're not MY guys in any sense of the word. I don't belong to any political party, if that's what you're implying. I always vote for what I believe will be the lesser of two evils. It takes the passage of time to show whether one has been wise or not with his or her vote. Besides, it's government bureacracy that spends the money, not the political leaders. It is the unnamed, unknown, faceless wheels and cogs and machinery of government that rolls along spending money regardless who is in office at any given moment.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<This is a common tactic of antiwar, anti-government, anti-corporate protestors, who apparently really believe that if we eliminate some budget item they find distasteful, then all this money is going to be sitting there in a pile and we can simply redirect it to some humanitarian cause that we all would love to see funded>> I don't see anything wrong with these comparisons. They definitely shed light on our national priorities. Right now, our national priorties are not benefiting anyone -- except maybe big business and big oil.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But it is really the height of naivety to think that if money were suddenly not spent for purpose A, it would suddenly go towards purpose B.>> Kind of like saying that if Disney had not spent so much money building DVC resorts they would have spent more money maintaining the parks. Right.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Yes, Saddam was a freedom fighter.>> Sadly, because of the horrific way our "allies" handled his execution, many in the Arab world now see him that way. We took a guy that was almost universally reviled and turned him into a hero. Great.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If we don't know what the benefit would be, why in the world did we go to war?> We knew what the potential benefit would be. It's not clear now if we will gain it all, part, or none.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They've had their day, we'll all be paying dearly for it for years to come.> Or reaping the benefits, if we succeed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Or reaping the benefits, if we succeed.<< Even with some amazing turnaround and total success, there's going to be one helluva bill to pay for this war. And as of now, there's no clear end in sight, so the meter is still running. There is a cost to pre-emptive wars like this, and it isn't just a financial cost. US credibility has suffered because some in this administration had convinced themselves that we'd be greeted as liberators with flowers and chocolates and such.
