How much did the Iraq war actually cost?

Iraqi troops.

I know you didn't read my link but did you read yours?

 

Uh, you mean 50,000 American troops.

Yes, did you read how even in Haiti for humanitarian issues in Haiti "non combat" troops still had to go into combat. You really think "non combat" troops are not going to be used in Iraq? Especially when they can be used on request of the Iraqi government.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129396515&ft=1&f=1001
As of yesterday we've just fallen below the 50,000 mark. 49,700 troops currently will remain level at that number until next summer.

And trust me the Iraqis will be asking for our help.

 

Can you not comprehend continuing expenses for generations to come? We're still treating wounded Veterans from WW II, Korea and Vietnam, and we'll still be treating these Vets for the next 6 decades at the expense of our children, grand children and great grandchildren.

If I told you about covert CIA missions, I'd have to kill you. Their existence is a fact, though. Remember the CIA agents who were killed in Afghanistan recently by a suicide bomber?

The Bush Administration paid for much of the wars outside of the budget, which means not in the records you posted.

 

entirely too much and probably somewhere in the trillions. considering it began during the first bush era

 

And just how was he able to commit so many atrocities? OH, that's right, with the weapons and gas he got from the U.S., which also put him in power. Oh my god!!!! That makes us responsible.

The situation in the Middle East was set up by Western nations, tinkered with by Westerners and thus all of this chaos is our own fault, and every time we interfere we make things worse.

I think all you've done here is to highlight the arrogance of Americans when it comes to the destiny of other peoples in the world and demonstrate that our leaders are willing to take food from the mouths of American children to make war while sending their parents off to die.

There was no justification for the Iraq war or dropping the ball in Afghanistan.

.

 

So in your mind if a merchant sells someone a gun and said person uses it to kill someone iot is not the murderers fault but the sellers?

You sure about that?

In your mind after the gulf war no inspectors should have been used, no interference should have been considered as Saddam destroyed the marsh Arabs?

Yes, food shortages are abundent throuhout the US, and what about the mouths of our Arab brothers?

I guess you would just as soon turn a blind eye towards them.

In your mind should Hitler and his regime been allowed to continue in there genocide indefinetly, if not at what point would you say introvention would be justified?

 

if the merchant sells the gun to someone they know is going to use it on their fellow human beings, then yes

[and i'm sure about that]

 

and i hate to keep reminding you people

the u$ only declared war on germany after they declared war on us

perhaps we never would have otherwise, who knows?

 

And what is to happen to the actual trigger men?

 

America fought Germany twice, first WWI and again in WWII.

In World War One, the incident that finally made the US declare war on Germany was the Zimmerman Telegram, in which the Germans offered to Mexico: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. But this was only the final straw in a series of aggressive actions taken by Germany that the US didn't like. For much of the war, the Germans used their U-boats to target any ship bound for Britain and these actions ended up killing American citizens traveling by sea. The sinking of the Lusitania is the best known submarine incident. These attacks angered President Wilson and already made him supportive of the British and French.

In World War II, the US actually never declared war on Germany. FDR declared war on Japan on Dec 8, and soon after, Hitler in one of his "smarter" moments declared war on America, dooming Nazi Germany to eventual defeat.

 

generally if you kill someone you are arrested and tried

since the murderer was a world leader we have other ways of dealing with them

they are called the united nations [the organization we lied to before the war] and the international court of justice [the court we ignored]

presumably you would have no problem with an invasion of the u$ and the hanging of george bush after a show trial?

okay then, we can agree on something . . .

 

you mentioned hitler, so i assumed we were discussing the latter

and we did so declare war on germany, otherwise why:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/decmenu.asp

 

Well as long as we're on the subject of ignoring or disobeying the UN,

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

This ignorant statement exposes your simplicistic view of the war, thanks for sharing.

 

that's very funny, my view of the war is simplistic

i am in a thread started by someone who believes the government's budget report

so, i figure it's retard time

 

I don't find it very funny.

I'm in a thread with someone that believes Saddam actually listened to the UN.

Took the thought out of my head.

 

i never said he listened

i said that's the legal and correct way to deal with international issues

do you have a list of countries we need to invade so that we can solve their problems?

bet it's long

[and we're on it]

 

So in your mind what should actually been awaiting Saddam was an endless torrent of paperwork addressed from the UN and if he chose to ignore the requests simply let it fly, seriouly how can you post such trite and expect it to hold water?

You have mistaken the context of the war, no it was not a strictly humanitarian affair and should not be mistaken as one, but at the same time in your attempt to write off any semblance of goodwill you enact a grave injustice to the long suffering people who lived under Saddam rule and have now found themselves free to elect there leaders as opposed to simply taking orders from the psychotic crime family that ran the country for so many years.

Well if your asking if other countries could benifet from having US troops there to restore order of course, (the Congo comes to mind) however acts of stictly goodwill rarely find there way into american politics.

I don't understand can you go into more detail?

 

Your analogy doesn't fit. Yes, Saddam was a brutal bastard, but the U.S. knew that when he was given the weapons.

You are evidently not very up on Middle East history. All of this volatile shit that's going on is the direct result of our own making. It's really difficult to discuss this with someone who doesn't seem to have a clue how these countries came into being and how these dictators and monarchies came to power.

I watched the entire Gulf war on CNN. How old were you when this happened? Maybe you should study recent history, UN inspectors turned Iraq inside out, I watched that on CNN, also (I was a manager/technician in a TV repair shop at the time).

I don't know if you're being you usual smart-ass self or serious, but yes, food banks usually run out of food before they run out of people in need, many the families of military personnel. The difference between civilian pay and military pay is quite large, and military families are hurting. This is what happens when Americans support the troops with bumper stickers instead of money.

What about them? If we would leave them to run their own affairs they would be much better off.

I would feed my own family first and not install a dictator to run their lives.

I ask for an apple and you gave me tofu. Sorry, but Hitler didn't set up these Middle East dictators. But, to address your red herring, If you want the U.S. to be the world's policeman, you need to pony up to the IRS bar and contribute about 75% of your salary to pay for it, bring back the draft and expect the worst depression this nation has ever seen.

I guess "in your mind," killing a few hundred thousand Iraqis and destroying their entire country is helping them. What's your philosophy here, a dead man suffers no more.

.

 

Are we really comparing the war in the gulf to WW2 now?