Iraq Invasion

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Given the rate at which Saddam Hussein, his insane sons, and his henchmen were killing Iraqis prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there are more Iraqis alive today then there would have been if the former regime was still in power.

First, it'd be necessary that you demonstrate that there's a "rate" rather than a series of idiosyncratic events. How about the "rate" at which the US uses nuclear weapons? There ain't one. It's not a rate, it's specific events.
It would be helpful to your case if you could demonstrate that this murdering would've continued apace. Your case could be bolstered by something as simple as a graph with time as one axis and number murdered as the other. [However, IIRC, these instances of mass murder occurred sporadically in response to specific, idiosyncratic incidents rather than as a part of a general trend or in regular periodic intervals.] It would greatly benefit your case if you could show that these specific idiosyncratic incidents were likely to repeat themselves and produce similar outcomes despite occurring in a different environment.

Until you demonstrate that there actually was a "rate," there's nothing there to be refuted.

Substitute the word "number" for the word "rate".

 

[shuamort]

As the teacher, I assign you the task of googling a bit to bring yourself up to date on the period between the cease fire of Desert Storm and the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom with respect to the atrocities committed by the regime against Iraqi nationals.

When you understand what you either truly do not understand, or are faking, you may then refute the proposition.

My doing your work for you will not help you to learn history.

No, you're doing YOUR work. You have to PROVE the claims you attempt to set forward. It's called debate. You can't support your claim, you don't make your point. I can wait.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is no price tag high enough that shouldn't be paid to HELP people who are being oppressed and murdered.

While this is all well and good, if not even noble and admirable for an individual (I assume that you've already sold all your worldly goods and donated the proceeds, yes?) it's suicidal for a nation.
While it can occasionally be useful to make certain, limited analogies between the behaviors of individual persons and nations, they are quite distinct entities that are subject to entirely different sets of circumstances.

Substitute the word "number" for the word "rate".

Alright.

Given the number at which Saddam Hussein, his insane sons, and his henchmen were killing Iraqis prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom...
​

The sentence loses it's internal consistency and becomes more or less senseless and meaningless.
Still nothing there to be refuted.

Your case hinges entirely upon past performance being indicative of future results. If you can't show that this murdering would've continued apace, then there is nothing to be refuted.

edited to add emphasis

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

While this is all well and good, if not even noble and admirable for an individual (I assume that you've already sold all your worldly goods and donated the proceeds, yes?) it's suicidal for a nation.
While it can occasionally be useful to make certain, limited analogies between the behaviors of individual persons and nations, they are quite distinct entities that are subject to entirely different sets of circumstances.

One does not have to live in poverty to selflessly lend aid to others. What is 750 Billion dollars to America when we have trillions?

 

[RightinNYC]

The money doesn't disappear it is invested in American businesses just like this:
Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.

While I agree that that is an egregious amount, what happened to it? It was paid to a federal business. No different from the 400 hammers or 1200 toilet seats.

You keep dancing around the fact that another $80 billion dollars has been granted by congress for this. There's a $60 billion dollar difference between what's spent, what's been just approved and another $60 billion to be used up.

I'm not dancing around anything, it's just that it's foolish to claim that all that money has been spent, when it hasn't. Because something is allocated, it doesn't mean it's spent.

$60 Billion dollars. To put it another way, the United States, population of almost 300 million, has its President requested for an increase in education budget of $13.8 billion bringing its whole budget to $56 billion dollars. So, this $60 billion dollars that you're just shrugging off is more that the federal government spends on education. You don't see a problem with that?

Yes, I do see a problem. There shouldn't BE a federal budget for education. It's almost completely paid for by the states. The Department of Education is unnecessary.

 

[shuamort]

While I agree that that is an egregious amount, what happened to it? It was paid to a federal business. No different from the 400 hammers or 1200 toilet seats.

No, Haliburton is not a federal business, it's a private company.

I'm not dancing around anything, it's just that it's foolish to claim that all that money has been spent, when it hasn't. Because something is allocated, it doesn't mean it's spent.

Do you honestly think it's not going to be spent?

Yes, I do see a problem. There shouldn't BE a federal budget for education. It's almost completely paid for by the states. The Department of Education is unnecessary.

We agree on that.

 

[RightinNYC]

How d'ya figure? If I buy a house for $100k, yet I've only been paying my mortage for 6 years, that doesn't mean that my house only costs $20k. It's still costs $100k.

]

But you only paid 20K. If it turns out the house later on doesn't cost 100K, you get that back. To make a better analogy, say you set aside 100K to fix up a house. After 25K of repairs, you can't look at house and say "These repairs cost me 100K and it only looks somewhat decent."

And if you finish the repairs early, you haven't spent the other 75K.

I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American. I'd want to know what's in it for the US.

If that nation's mine

How about a bastion of stability in the middle east. How about a future trading partner. How about the freedom of 25 million people, and a shining example to the nations around it someday. What did the US get out of WWI? We could have just as easily traded with Germany as with England. There are ideals that to some, are worth fighting for.

Well, we are building permanent bases (they're called "enduring camps" in newspeak)

Meet the 389th Engineers, Davenport component
March 14, 2004

He understood Camp Victory to be the largest combat base project since Vietnam. It required filling nearly five miles of deep irrigation ditches with more than 185,000 tons of rubble, the clearing of acres of wheat fields, and the laying of gravel and building roads.

It's to be one of eight long-term bases American troops plan to use on Baghdad's outskirts in a move out of the city center to coincide with the return of sovereignty to the nation on June 30.
​

[and]

By late January 2004 engineers from the 1st Armored Division were midway through an $800 million project to build half a dozen camps for the incoming 1st Cavalry Division. Army planners expected to finish by 15 March 2004. The new outposts, dubbed Enduring Camps, will improve living quarters for soldiers and allow the military to return key infrastructure sites within the Iraqi capital to the emerging government, military leaders said. “The plan is for the camps to last five to 10 years,” said Col. Lou Marich, commander of the 1st AD engineers. “They will last longer if we take care of them.”
​

Engineer support teams build logistical hub in Iraq
By Grant Sattler
Coalition Provisional Authority

Johnson is a project manager in the environmental branch at Europe District. He deployed to Turkey in April for a month for the planned push into Iraq from the north, returned to Germany, and then deployed to Iraq in July with a multi-district Tiger Team engaged in master planning for the permanent bases in Iraq, working at Al Taji north of Baghdad.

Johnson said his major projects on LSA Anaconda are building a Class 8 warehouse for medical supplies, building a theater postal distribution facility, and building an 800,000-square-foot concrete parking apron for both the Air Force and Army. The warehouse is mechanically complicated because of refrigeration for blood supplies and security for narcotics.
​

We have permanent bases in every neck of the world, except the middle east. Is Germany a threat? We have 60,000 troops there. There's no reason not to build bases in Iraq.

Perhaps I just have a stronger realization whose money this is and that it doesn't just come from nowhere. Liberal politicans like those of Team Bush are always wanting to throw the American electorate's money into some hare-brained social engineering scheme or another. This social engineering project just happens to be an attempt to remake the ME in a more PC image.

When you have the hundreds of billions to fund social engineering experiments in the ME, by all means have at it. As long as we're spending America's money, I'll demand realistic goals and some responsible planning instead of fabulists' vague promises, exaggerations, and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth.

edited to fix link

Perhaps you and I just value things differently.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

One does not have to live in poverty to selflessly lend aid to others. What is 750 Billion dollars to America when we have trillions?

About 7% of our GDP.

Nations exist to take care of their citizens. If an action does not benefit its citizens, then the nation has no business taking it. Nations are not in the business of doing anything "selflessly," in part because they do not have a "self."
This discussion would be fairly broad (if it were continued) and prob'ly deserves its own thread.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Righto it's quite off topic. Some other time perhaps. My apologies.

 

[RightinNYC]

About 7% of our GDP.

Nations exist to take care of their citizens. If an action does not benefit its citizens, then the nation has no business taking it. Nations are not in the business of doing anything "selflessly," in part because they do not have a "self."
This discussion would be fairly broad (if it were continued) and prob'ly deserves its own thread.

Foolish statement.

Where on earth did you get the idea that all 750B would be spent in a year?

So far, in the first two years, which almost definately will be the most expensive, around 150B was spent. That's 75 a year, and I would say a conservative estimate would have that number decreasing significantly each year.

So what is 75B compared to our GDP?

.625%

That's not much. I don't have a problem with .625% of our GDP being spent on this war. Especially when almost all .625% is coming back into American Businesses.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, Haliburton is not a federal business, it's a private company.

Pardon me, I misspoke. I meant to say that halliburton is an american business. It employs Americans, pays dividends to American stockholders, and strengthens the American economy.

Do you honestly think it's not going to be spent?

Maybe it will be. But do you know how long it's going to take to spend all 300B?

We agree on that.

Good.

 

[shuamort]

Maybe it will be. But do you know how long it's going to take to spend all 300B?

Let's see, we've been in Iraq since March '03. We've spent about $160 Billion, that's two years. Given that rate, I'd say we'll have spent $300 Billion by March '07.

 

[RightinNYC]

Let's see, we've been in Iraq since March '03. We've spent about $160 Billion, that's two years. Given that rate, I'd say we'll have spent $300 Billion by March '07.

That also included the invasion itself, the moving of massive amounts of material to the middle east, and providing for a larger number of troops. Now, the troops are already there, their number will be slowly decreasing, most of the material is there, and the amount of action is decreasing.

The amount spend in the first 12 months was approx 100B, and the amount spent in the second 12 months was approx 50B.

I would presume that the rate of spending would decrease significantly, so say we continue to spent 50B for a year or two, then it drops to 40, or 30. That remaining 140B we have will last us about 3 or 4 years.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Foolish statement.Where on earth did you get the idea that all 750B would be spent in a year?

Where on earth did you get the idea that I had the idea that all 750B would be spent in a year?

] We have permanent bases in every neck of the world, except the middle east. Is Germany a threat? We have 60,000 troops there. There's no reason not to build bases in Iraq.

Well, the merits of building permanent bases in Iraq's not the issue at hand. I was merely pointing out that we would be in Iraq for a while despite the doubts you expressed, "...10 years of our presence there, which I doubt will be the case."

] Perhaps you and I just value things differently.

Things like realistic goals and some responsible planning.

re the www.costofwar.com site:
One should note this snippet from their site:

"The Cost of War counter indicates the magnitude of cost to U.S. taxpayers. It shows the amount appropriated by Congress spread out over time. It does not indicate the actual outlays or obligations as they are incurred."
​

So, this has not much at all to do with the argument that you're trying to make. They've just taken the total and averaged it out over the time period that the appropriation is supposed to cover. This means, that the site will hit the full $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005).

You'll have to do further research to find out how much has actually been put into the hands of contractors et al. The number on the front-page of this site does not supply that info.

Righto it's quite off topic. Some other time perhaps. My apologies.

Absolutely no apology necessary. It's an engaging subject.

I'm surprised no one's brought up the fact that the $300b # is for Afghanistan as well.

 

[RightinNYC]

Where on earth did you get the idea that I had the idea that all 750B would be spent in a year?

When you quoted 7% of our GDP, I wanted to point out that it will be spread out over a much longer time.

Well, the merits of building permanent bases in Iraq's not the issue at hand. I was merely pointing out that we would be in Iraq for a while despite the doubts you expressed, "...10 years of our presence there, which I doubt will be the case."

Don't get me wrong, I think we'll have a presence in Iraq until the day America ceases to exist, much as we do in Germany, S Korea, Japan, etc. My point is that it will stop being looked at as a "war expenditure" soon. Nobody views the costs of stationing 60,000 troops in Germany as a war expenditure.


r

e the www.costofwar.com site:
One should note this snippet from their site:

"The Cost of War counter indicates the magnitude of cost to U.S. taxpayers. It shows the amount appropriated by Congress spread out over time. It does not indicate the actual outlays or obligations as they are incurred."
​

So, this has not much at all to do with the argument that you're trying to make. They've just taken the total and averaged it out over the time period that the appropriation is supposed to cover. This means, that the site will hit the full $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005).

You'll have to do further research to find out how much has actually been put into the hands of contractors et al. The number on the front-page of this site does not supply that info.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/09/MNGOU6IK1J1.DTL&type=printable

This site, though slightly outdated, gives concrete numbers for how much the war actually cost per month. The low was 2.7 B in Nov. 2003, to a high of 7B in Jan 2004. It claims that the war would cost 300B over 10 years, and also claims that 150B wouldn't be actually spent until Oct 2005. So, it looks like the cost of war numbers were a bit high.

I'm surprised no one's brought up the fact that the $300b # is for Afghanistan as well.

It gets glossed over so easily

 

[Arch Enemy]

Why does it take so much money to kill someone.. with that we could have hired a group of Mercs to do the business.

I really have no arguement at this point in time.. good luck fellows.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why does it take so much money to kill someone.. with that we could have hired a group of Mercs to do the business.

Actually, thet second largest group in Iraq (after the Yanks and before the Brits) is made up of hired guns. Last I looked, which was months ago, if not a full year, there were upwards of 20,000 of 'em. At that point, security costs (the fees contractors pay these guys) had unexpectedly risen to 10% of budget. This caused many jobs to be 're-bid.' I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage of costs dedicated to security (the fees for hired guns) were at somewhere the same level still.
Whether or not they're mercenaries is debatable on a case by case basis. A number of them were former members of South African death squads and some were former members of Executive Outcomes, so, you can imagine. Of course, there're a number of good honest Americans like ourselves. One fella wrote into an arms magazine with a review of real world effects of frangible bullets. Under the CPA, many of these fellas are basically legally untouchable, not subject to any laws unless Bremer himself specifically did the paperwork. Somehow, we got lucky. Despite the checkered and black history of some of these 20,00 folks, apparently not a single one committed any crimes during the CPA's existence - least none were ever brought up on charges by Bremer, who was understandably busy.
Wonder if any Iraqis fitted the US with the blame for how these largely unregulated gentlemen behaved?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Don't get me wrong, I think we'll have a presence in Iraq until the day America ceases to exist much as we do in Germany, S Korea, Japan, etc.

Which is markedly different, nay, directly opposed to what Team Bush was telling us when they were selling the electorate on the invasion.

My point is that it will stop being looked at as a "war expenditure" soon. Nobody views the costs of stationing 60,000 troops in Germany as a war expenditure.

Course, no one looks at it was free either.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/09/MNGOU6IK1J1.DTL&type=printable
This site, though slightly outdated, gives concrete numbers for how much the war actually cost per month. The low was 2.7 B in Nov. 2003, to a high of 7B in Jan 2004. It claims that the war would cost 300B over 10 years, and also claims that 150B wouldn't be actually spent until Oct 2005. So, it looks like the cost of war numbers were a bit high.

First, you're right, it is outdated.
Well, what's discussed here're several things. They make a distinction between money actually spent, costs incurred, payments to which we have committed and ancillary costs. No matter how closely one parses the terminology, and no matter how many different categories and subcategories one uses to classify and name the various expenses, as far as the taxpayer’s bill goes, we’re footing it all. All of these things are directly related to and the result of the invasion.

The piece also notes how often the projections have been off the mark. Given this and it's age, I expect that the numbers provided have had to be revised at least once since the article first appeared.

However, the point remains that hundreds of billions have already been allocated and are not available to be spent elsewhere [referred to as 'cost' in the common parlance] and, [c.sagan]billions and billions[/cs] more are going to be allocated repeatedly for the foreseeable future.


Your relative lack of cynicism re the federal govt, military contractors and taxpayer's money (that the two groups may not spend all that they can) is somewhat endearing.

 

[Pacridge]

Which is markedly different, nay, directly opposed to what Team Bush was telling us when they were selling the electorate on the invasion.

Course, no one looks at it was free either.

First can’t remember if I welcomed you to Debate Politics or not. So Welcome!



Yes, this most certainly isn’t what we were sold when the Iraq war was being touted on every news show. I remember being told ‘No one knows if this is going to take 6 days, 6 weeks or even 6 months.” I think that’s something Rummy said. I also remember being told that the rebuilding would be paid for by Iraqi oil. That’s not working out so far. And I believe it was at least implied that the cost of the invasion would also be paid for by this oil.

 

[RightinNYC]

Which is markedly different, nay, directly opposed to what Team Bush was telling us when they were selling the electorate on the invasion.

I don't think that's the case. I didn't (and don't) think that we're going to be functioning in a military capacity for a permanent length of time, but I don't think anyone thought that we would invade Iraq, set up a perfect place for us to have stabilizing and strategic bases, and then neglect it. I don't see that as a lie.

Course, no one looks at it was free either.

I don't hear anyone protesting over the costs of maintaining those troops in Germany, so I can assume that it's not really a hot button issue. Once our troops in Iraq aren't operating militarily, I believe it'll be the same way.

First, you're right, it is outdated.
Well, what's discussed here're several things. They make a distinction between money actually spent, costs incurred, payments to which we have committed and ancillary costs. No matter how closely one parses the terminology, and no matter how many different categories and subcategories one uses to classify and name the various expenses, as far as the taxpayer’s bill goes, we’re footing it all. All of these things are directly related to and the result of the invasion.

The piece also notes how often the projections have been off the mark. Given this and it's age, I expect that the numbers provided have had to be revised at least once since the article first appeared.

However, the point remains that hundreds of billions have already been allocated and are not available to be spent elsewhere [referred to as 'cost' in the common parlance] and, [c.sagan]billions and billions[/cs] more are going to be allocated repeatedly for the foreseeable future.

It is very difficult to find an up to date article on this topic, and even mroe difficult to find one that specifically acknowledges the cost. Here's snippets of facts that I've found:

1) The cost of the war was under 120B through mid Sep 2004 http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html

2) According to Halliburtonwatch.com, the cost of the war through Dec 2004 was 117B, citing Bloomberg.
http://halliburtonwatch.org/news/truman_committee_voted_down.html

Whether or not its been allocated, it doesnt mean it will be spent. Who knows, after 250 B is spent, we could be far enough along that the other 50B is reallocated to something else.

Your relative lack of cynicism re the federal govt, military contractors and taxpayer's money (that the two groups may not spend all that they can) is somewhat endearing.

Endearing as it may be, I have reason to feel the way I do. When that money is spent, I see where it goes. I see the half dead airforce base in my area that was closed in 1990 rebuilding itself with high tech jobs, turning my area from a shithole into a decent place to live again. I see aerospace companies doubling their workforce, and other companies hiring more workers. I understand where that money is going, and if it's helping settle conditions in Iraq and boost our economy, I'm alright with it.

 

[Pacridge]

I don't hear anyone protesting over the costs of maintaining those troops in Germany, so I can assume that it's not really a hot button issue. Once our troops in Iraq aren't operating militarily, I believe it'll be the same way.

How exactly will military troops cease to be "operating militarily?"



And people have protested the US military’s involvement in other countries for years. It wasn’t too long ago that we had several bases in the Philippines. I know I served in Subic Bay for some time (that was a completely insane place). Those bases are closed, in part, due to the mass protests by the Philippine people. And people here protested our involvement too. I can remember being in the Navy and having to March in a Veterans Day parade in San Francisco. There were many protesters. A lot of what they were protesting was our involvement over seas. A good friend of mine was hit in the head with a coke bottle.

 

[RightinNYC]

How exactly will military troops cease to be "operating militarily?"



And people have protested the US military’s involvement in other countries for years. It wasn’t too long ago that we had several bases in the Philippines. I know I served in Subic Bay for some time (that was a completely insane place). Those bases are closed, in part, due to the mass protests by the Philippine people. And people here protested our involvement too. I can remember being in the Navy and having to March in a Veterans Day parade in San Francisco. There were many protesters. A lot of what they were protesting was our involvement over seas. A good friend of mine was hit in the head with a coke bottle.

Are the troops posted in Japan or Germany now operating militarily? Are there protests to bring those troops home?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant was, someday, the obvious goal is for our troops in Iraq to be part of a permanent contingent living on safe and secure strategic bases, as we have in dozens of countries around the world.

And as I am well aware, there are protestors for everything. But at the same time, these troops are much less hot button than our current troops in Iraq.

 

[myshkin]

How exactly will military troops cease to be "operating militarily?"



And people have protested the US military’s involvement in other countries for years. It wasn’t too long ago that we had several bases in the Philippines. I know I served in Subic Bay for some time (that was a completely insane place). Those bases are closed, in part, due to the mass protests by the Philippine people. And people here protested our involvement too. I can remember being in the Navy and having to March in a Veterans Day parade in San Francisco. There were many protesters. A lot of what they were protesting was our involvement over seas. A good friend of mine was hit in the head with a coke bottle.

Okinawa and Italy are two nations whose populations have been very unhappy with the US presence recently.

I have read in a number of places that we have over 700 bases in more than 120 foreign nations. It is ludicrous to suggest that this is for our national defense.

The people of Iraq will have no more to say about US basing than the people of Italy or Okinawa do.

There is a new International Law over all previous.
"What we say goes"

 

[RightinNYC]

Okinawa and Italy are two nations whose populations have been very unhappy with the US presence recently.

I have read in a number of places that we have over 700 bases in more than 120 foreign nations. It is ludicrous to suggest that this is for our national defense.

The people of Iraq will have no more to say about US basing than the people of Italy or Okinawa do.

There is a new International Law over all previous.
"What we say goes"

Contrary to popular opinion, many of these countries want the US troops there. When Bush proposed his plan to begin removing some of the 60,000 troops from Germany, there was an outcry from the many Germans whose economy is driven by the influx of American spending and the jobs created by those 60,000 soldiers.

And we don't have those bases around the world for national security, they're there for strategic reasons. I personally have no problem with it: It gives the soldiers who rotate in and out of these bases many different culture experiences. It gives our soldiers a chance to see others, and them a chance to see us, so as to avoid the tragedy of blind hate for "the other." And, in case China decides to invade Taiwan, or NK invades SK, or if the USSR reforms, we'll be damn glad we had those bases.

 

[Pacridge]

Are the troops posted in Japan or Germany now operating militarily? Are there protests to bring those troops home?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant was, someday, the obvious goal is for our troops in Iraq to be part of a permanent contingent living on safe and secure strategic bases, as we have in dozens of countries around the world.

And as I am well aware, there are protestors for everything. But at the same time, these troops are much less hot button than our current troops in Iraq.

I think the distinction you may be trying to make is they would no longer be engaged in combat operations? I believe military troops will always operate "militarily."