Somebody explain how we can throw $127 BILLION MORE into Iraq without even considering an end to the tax cuts? Leaving Iraq would cost less, both in money and lives. Why are we being so stubborn?
The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.
The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That’s on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.
Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The latest request, due to reach the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress next spring, would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who will chair the Senate Budget Committee next year, said the amount under consideration is "$127 billion and rising." He said the cost "is going to increasingly become an issue" because it could prevent Congress from addressing domestic priorities, such as expanding Medicare prescription drug coverage.
The latest request … would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War.
We all recall how stopping the funding to our allies worked so well in Vietnam, don’t we?
…funding our allies…
If by our “allies,” are you referring to the colonial French, who should have gotten the f-ck out in 1945 and given the Vietnamese their independence? Or do you mean the corrupt, puppet ‘democracy’ we helped to set up in the South?
The Vietnam War was a massive crime against humanity that decimated much of Southeast Asia. It brought little to the region besides bloodshed and the reinforcement of horrible social, political, and economic conditions.
The only bright side to the Vietnam clusterf-ck was seen by the war profiteers and the right-wing movement that cheered the war on from the safety of home.
The only possible solution to Iraq begins with pulling out immediately and holding those responsible to account. Given that so many current Dems (and Holy Joe) voted to give the Bushies the green light on Iraq, I don’t expect to see any accountability anytime soon.
There will just be another massive waste of life and money in the history books, and decades more of right-wing chickensh-ts bleating about how we could’ve won if not for the hippies. Only this time we’re all really going to pay for it, sooner and later.
Actually, I meant the thousands of South Vietnamese who were killed, driven out of their businesses and their land by the vindictive North Vietnamese.
Contrary to the cock - eyed liberal view of the Vietnam War, the only people who “won” were the demonstrating leftists who were able to influence US policy by sheer numbers in the streets.
This time there will be no snarling, racist demonstrators who, like you, figure that Iraquis aren’t worth dying for. You want to fight the terrorists one at a time, as they pass through the metal detectors. Unless, of course, they look Middle Eastern, then we’re profiling. Sorry, pal, even the newly victorious Dems know better.
I’d be willing to accept further funding for a decent plan. That’s not what’s being asked for this moment.
What’s being asked for is 127 billion to do more of the same, as if the strategy was foolproof but only the money was lacking.
“Contrary to the cock - eyed liberal view of the Vietnam War, the only people who “won” were the demonstrating leftists who were able to influence US policy by sheer numbers in the streets.”
-Duh-umb.
It was not the “demonstrating leftists” that were guiding policy in Vietnam -period. Any notion that it was filthy hippes making the war unpopular is sky-high rhetoric.
Casualties tend to make war a tad unsavory though. If you ever bothered to research, you would also discover there was a sizeable contingent of conservatives who eventually opposed it as well.
By all means though, feel free to present any official record to the contrary.
PD100,
fd’s post was not at all dumb. You destroyed your own straw man - not fd’s argument. He said demonstrators ‘influenced’ policy. You expanded that to assert ‘they were guiding’ policy. It was certainly my perception that leftist demonstrators did have some influence- how much is arguable. Review the Chicago convention of 1968 - its a good snapshot to pick up the flavor of the demonstrations. Agree that there were conservative opposed to the war - by the late sixties (but it was mostly a Democratic lead war).
You destroyed your own straw man - not fd’s argument. He said demonstrators ‘influenced’ policy.
If you want to play that angle, fd is equally guilty. If you want to hang your hat on the word “influenced,” let’s talk about what some of the other influences, both greater and lesser. Mr. fd makes “leftists” out to be the deciding factor.
That’s right, we should have stayed in Vietnam, because there weren’t enough dead Americans already. For all his good on civil rights, President Johnson was as stupidly “stay the course” as George Bush is and the end result is the same damn thing.
And “influencing” versus “guiding”? That’s a pretty thin hair to split.
“This time there will be no snarling, racist demonstrators who, like you, figure that Iraquis aren’t worth dying for.”
Dugs to the rescue with more semantic dancing - oh and Dugger, re: the quote above, tell fd your opinon that Arabs/Muslims aren’t civlized enough to govern themselves as human beings. Go for it, let your racist flag fly …
Agree, Oliver.
Brian Lamb asked the same question this morning on Washington Jopurnal, and the same stupid right-wingnut arguments were trotted out: “What’s the cost of freedom” “I’m willing to pay whatever it cost to keep this country safe” etc etc.
Two points:
1. The reason the price tag is so high is because this “war” (It’s not a war. We won the Iraq war in the first 3 weeks of April 2003. This is the American Occupation of Iraq) was DESIGNED by Rumsfeld and his vision.
It’s an out-sourced, privatized war, with most of the supply-chain and logistics and services support done by no-bid contractors. Rove went along with it because the GOP gainss MAJOR contributions back from the profiteers. The GOP is fundraising off of TAXPAYERS! It’s a beautiful thing if you want the GOP in power forever. Not so good if you want accountability.
2. The Department of Defense and its brain, the Pentagon, have proven themselves laughably and absurdly incapable of keeping even minimum control over the hundreds of Billions of taxpayer dollars that roll into every program, every division from appropriations and special funding.
I saw a report that said the DoD could not account for over a TRILLION of the dollars it has been given that last five years.
The DoD part of the US budget is a major cause of our current deficit; it has skyrocketed almost 80% to over half of our available money each year, to 600B since the GOP won control in 1994.
The DoD realized almost immediately that with a GOP Congress, if it waved the flag or put on the secrecy act, it could escape all accountability, oversight, and retribution from the feckless GOP. We’ve seen the result.
Why would any reasonable family, small business, corporation, agency keep throwing huge showers of money to an entity that has shown it has no regard for record-keeping, accountability, respect for the taxpayer dollar or even a basic idea of the value of money or its proper use?
I would cut off all Iraq funds until a COMPLETE audit, whatever the cost, whatever the consequences, was complete.
Period.
Mind you, I am not anti-war. I believe in our military. I beieve the US serviceman should be the best-trained, best-fed, best-armed, best-led force in the Universe. I am willing to spend good money for military technology and good leadership.
I think our volunteers are admirable, dedicated, valiant professionals.
I have no illusions whatsover about the civilian leadership or the defense industry that feeds off it.
This request for more money is a last attempt to fund Haliburton before the well goes dry.
In January.
That’s right, we should have stayed in Vietnam, because there weren’t enough dead Americans already.
Yep, no more dead American troops after we left. Of course, there was the unfortunate matter of thousands of dead South Vietnamese and millions of dead Cambodians following the premature departure of the US from the region.
So what are you saying OW? That the life of an American is worth more than that of a Vietnamese or Cambodian? That sounds very nativist of you. Maybe you should go to our southern border to help the Minutemen keep the country safe for Americans. Careful talking like that, though, or people will call you a racist and nativist and you’ll anger the “all cultures and peoples are equally important” multicultural and diversity groups and they may take away your Liberal membership card.
You know, all the military experts (yes, even the ones that the Democrats consulted for their knowledge and expertise) are saying the same type of thing will happen in Iraq if we prematurely depart the region. Which is precisely what you are publically advocating and pushing for. Is this your way of saying that Americans are more valuable than Iraqis too?
Maybe you could clarify your position.
“This time there will be no snarling, racist demonstrators who, like you, figure that Iraquis aren’t worth dying for.”
Sir:
The estate of the late Mr. Orwell respectfully requests that you submit the required royalty payments or desist from appropriating Mr. Orwell’s work as your own. As you well know, it was Mr. Orwell who conceived, invented, developed, and popularized the idea that language can be used to subvert plain truth through a reversal of meaning (e.g. War is Peace).
Any further violations of the intellectual property rights of Mr. Orwell’s estate will result in prompt legal action.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Of course, there was the unfortunate matter of thousands of dead South Vietnamese and millions of dead Cambodians following the premature departure of the US from the region.
Premature? Prema-freakin’-ture?
How much longer do you suspect the U.S. should have stayed, VR? I’ll accept a rough guess here. And what do you think we could have accomplished in that time before the inevitable catastrophe to follow?
“…following the premature departure of the US from the region.”
I’m sorry did you say “premature”? We started sending advisors to Vietnam in 1950. What Quaker said.
Also, OW, you might be interested to know that some of the Americans who are actually the ones in harms way are more concerned about completing their mission than they are about leaving Iraq:
…some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.
“We don’t question why we’re sent here. Our job is to do what we’re told and we do it with pride,” said Sergeant Jason Gomez, a military policeman.
But these men are also some of the last believers — people who are still convinced that Iraq can survive its present violence to become a stable democracy. “We’re losing a lot of people over here, but they’re not dying in vain,” Sergeant Gomez insisted.
Sergeant Ron Carter, of the 101st, said: “It’s a bad situation. It’s a tough situation. But I think [Rumsfeld] probably did the right thing for the right reasons. Maybe it could have been a bit better planned, but helping people who were suffering — that’s a good reason.”
Major Mike Jason, who has been advising an Iraqi battalion for the past year, said that it remained to be seen how Mr Rumsfeld would be judged. “I hope history will judge that we did something good and stuck with it and saw it through, because it’s already been pretty damn costly.”
And before you start with the angry or snide accusations that I’m just a typical right-winger supporting the failed policies of the inept Bush administration, let me say that I agreed with Rumsfeld’s resignation, and that that the post-war planning has been inept and poorly managed. Something other than “stay the course” is definitely needed. However, that something is not “immediate pull out”, since I agree with the military experts that if we do leave prematurely the region will be a disaster. We won’t have the luxury of turning our back on the Middle East, and negotiation is not always going to resolve a situation. Eventually, we’ll have to go back in at some point and by then the battle will be a hell of a lot bigger and bloodier with a likely larger and more entrenched enemy.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers (or any, for that matter) or to be an expert on political theory or military tactics, I just think we need to stop and get an honest appraisal of where we are and what options we have. I don’t think that a knee-jerk reaction to “pull out”, whether it ends up being justified or not, is the way to go.
Premature, as in “departed (and cut off funding) before the people we were trying to help were ready to stand alone and take care of themselves”.
I have no idea how much longer we needed to stay in S. Vietnam. Obviously, we needed something other than “stay the course”. From the outcome, though, it’s hard to argue that S. Vietnam and Cambodia were ready to stand on their own.
VRWC, you’re just a typical right-winger supporting the failed policies of the inept Bush administration.
“From the outcome, though, it’s hard to argue that S. Vietnam and Cambodia were ready to stand on their own.”
But what, after more than decade of US combat troops in Vietnam suggests to you that Vietnam was ever going to be able to stand on its own?
What after more than three years of worsening civil violence in Iraq tells you that continuing our presence will suddenly reverse the trend?
I have no idea how much longer we needed to stay in S. Vietnam.
Or any indication that our prolonged presence could have changed the outcome.
We lost what, 50,000 young men and women? And how many more injured physically or emotionally? And killed how many millions of Vietnamese people?
The idea that adding thousands more to the tally could have changed the result is nothing but revisionist fantasy.
What’s more, VRWC, 30 years later we have a conservative Republican president ready to establish trade ties with the very same government we fought against.
Isn’t that an indication that we could have been spared some of the sacrifice to get where we are today?
Quaker,
Come now. If one ‘guides’, one is leading. If one influences, it can be negligible or big. In his haste to make a point, your bud PD100 assumed ‘guide’ over what the poster actaully said, the more limited ‘infuenced’.
I don’t quarrel that at times the applications of the two words could be close, but I do quarrel with someone choosing his/her own singular, creative interpretation and calling someone else ‘dumb’ on that basis.
Hey.Hey. LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?
That the life of an American is worth more than that of a Vietnamese or Cambodian?
Yes. Is this so hard to comprehend? I’m an American, I want to help my people - why don’t you? So George Bush doesn’t look bad? Too late.
I’m going to presume that VRWC has campaigned loud and long for troop intervention in Darfur and Rwanda before that. I’m going to presume that because otherwise his bleeding heart screeds on the poor Iraqis would ring absolutely hollow.
So that’s what I’ll presume.
Yes. Is this so hard to comprehend? I’m an American, I want to help my people - why don’t you? So George Bush doesn’t look bad? Too late.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about how Bush looks. I disagree with him on so many things that I’d be the last one to leap to his defense. Feel free to slam him all you want.
But please explain how “I’m an American, I want to help my people” in this instance isn’t a nativist, “us first”, kind of statement. When Minutemen are on the border saying “I’m an American, I want to protect my people”, they’re all evil racists and nativists to you. But when YOU say you want American troops out of harm’s way regardless of how many Iraqi civilians die as a result, you’re just being a proud American.
Please explain how that doesn’t make you a hypocrite. You can’t have it both ways.
Come now. If one ‘guides’, one is leading.
Not necessarily. One can “guide” by slightly altering the direction of a moving object, as in “Guide the pin into the appropriate slot,” or “The table saw fence serves as a guide for wood as it passes the saw blade.”
Please explain how that doesn’t make you a hypocrite. You can’t have it both ways.
Don’t have to have it both ways. Just one way will do…
1) There are people living in another country who want to stay there? Let’s don’t go kill them!
2) There are people who would like to come into this country to earn a decent living? Let’s don’t go kill them!
See? Just one way.
So what are you saying OW? That the life of an American is worth more than that of a Vietnamese or Cambodian?
And what is it that you’re saying? That sending an American overseas to kill Vietnamese or Cambodians and get killed himself is the only non-”racist” way to see the world.
Up: This way ^.
Even with ‘not necessarily” which means conditions exist, it would appear calling someone’s work ‘dumb’ is not very civil. PD could have said, if you are actually taking this very narrowly construed meaning of “influenced’ then you are ‘dumb.’
Too much time.
The minutemen don’t want brown people crossing the border. They’re racists.
I don’t want America going over and invading and occupying foreign countries and getting our people killed. It ain’t complicated.
Quaker, it would help if your explanation made any sense.
1) There are people living in another country who want to stay there? Let’s don’t go kill them!
Actually, the argument at the present time is “there are people living in another country and our presence there is the only thing at this point keeping the country from collapsing into total civil war and no doubt enormous loss of life to the people there. Let’s not leave.”
2) There are people who would like to come into this country to earn a decent living? Let’s don’t go kill them!
Who exactly is killing illegal immigrants? I thought those evil nativist racist Minutement bastards were just trying to keep them from entering this country, not kill them. Can you provide sources for these accusations?
I don’t want America going over and invading and occupying foreign countries and getting our people killed. It ain’t complicated.
Valid argument. But now that we’re there, you want our people out of there ASAP regardless of how many brown people die as a result.
Check.
And what is it that you’re saying? That sending an American overseas to kill Vietnamese or Cambodians and get killed himself is the only non-”racist” way to see the world.
Where exactly did I say this?
VRWC - So the argument is that leaving will cause the place to descend into chaos immediately, but our presence and current strategy–whatever it is– seems to be only slowing that descent, not stopping it or turning it around.
“Brown people” are dying at an alarming rate with our troops in the firezone. They will also die at an alarming rate if we leave. This is an impossible scenario if you base the next American action entirely on Iraqi casualties.
While I think OW is oversimplifying, I can understand the idea that if Iraqis are going to die either way, if it’s going to be hell and bloodshed no matter what, then why include American troops and contractors in that firestorm? This is a tragedy for Iraq, but it was a tragedy the second that the Rumsfeld “fast cheap war” doctrine was put into effect.
John McCain had an interesting comment earlier today about how he couldn’t ask a Marine to go back to Iraq and risk his life if it were only to delay defeat by a few months.
Um, Drone, if people want to come to the United States for a better life I’m all for it.
Should we send troops into harms way to protect the lives of innocent foreigners abroad? It depends on the situation and the plan put forth.
I can support working in concert with international agencies and coalitions to protect innocent life in chaotic situations.
I can’t quite muster the same support for invading a country just because it’s run by a brutal dictator — especially when that dictator has already been rendered unable to attack his own people or his neighbors through a coalition of international agencies and forces.
We’ve been in Iraq for over three years now because Bush was unwilling to let inspections run their course. Why? We may never know.
Should we now withdraw from Iraq? I think so, in part, because the withdrawl plans put forward emphasize redployment, not disengagement.
I think we all recognize that there can be no military solution the internal ethnic politics of Iraq. I don’t know a single plan that suggests the US should wash its hands of IRaq and never look back. Every plan to reduce US troops presence is tied to increased diplomatic and political efforts to find a solution.
“the argument at the present time is “there are people living in another country and our presence there is the only thing at this point keeping the country from collapsing into total civil war and no doubt enormous loss of life to the people there. Let’s not leave.”
You’re right. That is the argument. I happen to think that argument neglects important facts.
- It was our invasion that precipitated the current violence
- Our current course of action shows no probability of ending the violence.
- Proposed courses of action will cost lots of money and get lots of people–American and Iraqi–killed
- In all likelihood, the eventual outcome will be the same no matter how long we stay.
That we have bungled our way to the bottom of this hole doesn’t make it “racist” to propose putting down the shovel.
I’m going to presume that VRWC has campaigned loud and long for troop intervention in Darfur and Rwanda before that. I’m going to presume that because otherwise his bleeding heart screeds on the poor Iraqis would ring absolutely hollow.
Have I “campaigned loud and long” for staying in Iraq? Please point out where I did so.
I just said that I agree with the multiple Generals (both active duty and retired) who are saying that withdrawing from Iraq at this point would be a disaster for the Iraqi people. I’m sorry that you take this as a “bleeding heart screed” for the poor Iraqis. I also believe that a premature withdrawal would be a blow to American credibility in the region. “We’ll help you until we start to lose too many people or the political price gets too high and then you’re on your own” is not exactly the way to inspire confidence or gain friends.
As I noted, I think we need to stop and get an honest appraisal of where we are and what options we have. “Stay the course” is stupid. If the approach we’re taking hasn’t worked so far, it’s not going to miraculously start working. Some kind of properly done, phased withdrawal may turn out to be the best course of action to take. But let’s take a look at where we are first, shall we? Too many on the left (including the Dem leadership) are saying “Everything’s screwed up over there, we need to pull out now”. There are valid arguments that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. But that’s a moot point now. We DID go in and we ARE there now. We have to deal with the situation as it is, not the one that we should have or we wish we had.
And regarding Darfur and Rwanda? I think in both cases we should have intervened in some way rather than leave it to the UN to bungle.
Q: And what is it that you’re saying? That sending an American overseas to kill Vietnamese or Cambodians and get killed himself is the only non-”racist” way to see the world.
V: Where exactly did I say this?
The relevant quote is pasted directly above my comment.
I also believe that a premature withdrawal would be a blow to American credibility in the region.
Our credibility in the region?
Googly-moogly, Bullwinkle!
Invading already blew American credibility. A misguided effort to save credibility will only lead to more lost lives. We’re not arguing about the duping into the war, but about getting out of a bad situation.
VRWC - You have not been posting about staying in Iraq. You have, however, been saying that when the civil war happens due to the pullout, it’s because those who advocated pullout are ethnocentric. That it speaks to those advocates believing that Iraqis aren’t worth American lives.
I’m saying that if you haven’t been speaking with the same fervor on the situations in Rwanda and Darfur, then your protestation rings hollow. In fact, it could be argued that you’re saying that American lives are equivalent to Iraqi lives, but that Sudanese and Rwandans are just a little less important.
(As for the “bleeding heart” thing…that was snark. When liberals espouse such principles, we get smeared as “namby pamby.”)
A misguided effort to save credibility will only lead to more lost lives.
Thank God you’ve got that extensive background in journalism and as a “liberal bomb thrower” to help you make this snap expert assessment of the current military and political situation in Iraq.
Try not to confuse opinion with fact.
Try not to confuse opinion with fact.
Dude! It’s a blog!
OMG! A blog? Where people speak their mind?
I know. I just seems that OW sometimes has a tendency to express his opinion as if it were fact.
I just seems that OW sometimes has a tendency to express his opinion as if it were fact.
So this is your first blog? Check around. You’ll find the same sort of thing elsewhere.
“Try not to confuse opinion with fact.”
Um, Drone, have you expressed anything other than your opinion so far?
You don’t think the US should withdraw. That’s an opinion my friend. So to are all your prognostications as to what would happen. The violence will get worse? There’s a good probability that it might, but it isn’t a fact. It might not happen. It’s only your opinion that it would.
Let me take you back a bit …
Some people going into the war had the opinion that we would be greated as liberators. Others had the opinion that we could end up bogged down by urban warfare and street fighting. Still others had the opinion that we were unleash decades of ethnic and religious hatred and find ourselves stuck in the middle of a long, bloody fight for power.
I say it’s time to give a listen to the people whose opinions were proved correct the first time around.
Somehow this liberal bombthrower has been absolutely right on every long-term repercussion of the Iraq war. Sadly, but true.
Somehow this liberal bombthrower has been absolutely right on every long-term repercussion of the Iraq war. Sadly, but true.
Oliver! Have a cup of coffee. We know of NO long term repercussions of the Iraq war because there hasn’t been time enough. The operative word is “long”. Sweet Jesus.
The operative word is “long”.
Oh dear God. You’re not going to pester everyone with an argument over the meaning of the word “long,” are you?
If you’re of the opinion that the course of events in Iraq may take a turn for the better at some time in the future, do say so. Spare us another quibble over a meaning that was quite clear.
The duration of the conflict has already surpassed Mr. Rumsfeld’s most pessimistic forecasts. By that measure, we have definitely arrived in the “long” term.
We’ve been in Iraq longer than WWII in the same time we smashed the Axis we’ve lost 3,000 people, found no WMDs and have a civil war on our hands. I need no more time to see it descend further, nor wish to.
Too frappin’ easy OW. You just compared apples and oranges, didn’t you?: How long we have been in Iraq versus large scale military victory in Europe. How ’bout something a little more honest: war declaration to surrender - both entities, no excuses (2 months Iraq war declared to formal surrender, 3.5 years Europe). Then, OW ol’ pal, compare casualties of the two wars. Warning Georgie Porgie won’t like it either way. Better go back to the ‘boner’ critique.
2 months Iraq war declared to formal surrender
We got a formal surrender?
Dugger’s right, don’t compare Iraq to WWII. We were right to fight WWII. We have no business being in Iraq.