Trillion-Dollar Meltdown

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by Lightemup

For the super bases in Iraq, its pretty obvious that the US plans to have a permanent presence in Iraq for many years, figures like 40-50.000 have been mentioned. Because then its centrally placed to project force in all of the middle east and especially to keep the Iranians from the Saudi oil supply.

And now we come to some of the more realistic reasons for the war.. The ability to have US bases and influence deep within the region.

You do have to wonder.. This addiction to oil.. This war is looking like a 2 - 3 trillion exercise now.. The US could have gone and given every man woman and child in Iraq 20,000 USD (based on about a 2 trillion number I think I read 5k for the 500 bn official war costs numbers) and never risked a life, bought the country !! But imagine the potential if instead of chasing that oil, the money had been spend on alternative energy grants, had (what America does so well) the best and brightest on it.. Had made that drive to clean energy.

Not only would it not have had a war, would have reduced Americas dependence on others, reduced arab / islam / anti western influence over us, not only all those good things. But America would again be an innovator, hold the patents, have the best technology and could earn from that industry too.

Lets not forget now the 'cost' of this war, not just in lives but to americans in the pocket book. These are big numbers, so people have trouble actually visualizing how much America could have done for itself. But each American will directly lose about 6,600 USD (2tn / 300m).. Thats every man woman and child !! Not every non governmental breadwinner (I dont know the ratio for that... Kev ??) Lets say 1 in 3 people are of working age employed in a non Gov job.. That means every working person in the US is looking at a personal cost of about 19k USD !!! Its insane !!

I mean what it would pay in medicare, in schools, free higher education, in gov programs, in buying global goodwill and winning hearts and minds, it just boggles the mind. And what have we got for that expenditure ?? Some rich war contractors and a massive boondoggle that will haunt us for years. GWB your a pr1ck !!

[Simbo]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

I was going to run the old spec Olympics / net argument line at one point.. But I knew I probably couldnt retire gracefully.. I tried but I am weak..

You cheese eating surrender monkey 55555555555555 and lets look at which corporations the current top Administration officials go to work for after the erections. Unfortunately wars are good for the economy.

[nelsonone]

Originally Posted by Simbo

You cheese eating surrender monkey 55555555555555 and lets look at which corporations the current top Administration officials go to work for after the erections. Unfortunately wars are good for the economy.

what do you mean go to work for AFTER the elections Simon!!!!

[Dupree00]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

And now we come to some of the more realistic reasons for the war.. The ability to have US bases and influence deep within the region.

You do have to wonder.. This addiction to oil.. This war is looking like a 2 - 3 trillion exercise now.. The US could have gone and given every man woman and child in Iraq 20,000 USD (based on about a 2 trillion number I think I read 5k for the 500 bn official war costs numbers) and never risked a life, bought the country !! But imagine the potential if instead of chasing that oil, the money had been spend on alternative energy grants, had (what America does so well) the best and brightest on it.. Had made that drive to clean energy.

Not only would it not have had a war, would have reduced Americas dependence on others, reduced arab / islam / anti western influence over us, not only all those good things. But America would again be an innovator, hold the patents, have the best technology and could earn from that industry too.

Lets not forget now the 'cost' of this war, not just in lives but to americans in the pocket book. These are big numbers, so people have trouble actually visualizing how much America could have done for itself. But each American will directly lose about 6,600 USD (2tn / 300m).. Thats every man woman and child !! Not every non governmental breadwinner (I dont know the ratio for that... Kev ??) Lets say 1 in 3 people are of working age employed in a non Gov job.. That means every working person in the US is looking at a personal cost of about 19k USD !!! Its insane !!

I mean what it would pay in medicare, in schools, free higher education, in gov programs, in buying global goodwill and winning hearts and minds, it just boggles the mind. And what have we got for that expenditure ?? Some rich war contractors and a massive boondoggle that will haunt us for years. GWB your a pr1ck !!

signed:Barack Obama

[marc26]

Originally Posted by Setanta

Such and informative and intelligent thread ends like this. What a shame, such unnecessary banter.

I reckon its time to close the thread and move on to more intelligent reasoning.

to be honest, i think the discussion took a turn for the better once Lightemup and other people joined in and aid their opinions
i mean, for once on this board, it seemed we were able to peacefully talk about something like this without it turning into a pissing match of US BM's vs rest of board
sure,we all had our opinions and you could see the biases but i thought it was handled pretty well

[LivinLOS]

Yeah and my bias is less anti US and more anti hypocrisies..

[So-cal]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

And now we come to some of the more realistic reasons for the war.. The ability to have US bases and influence deep within the region.

You do have to wonder.. This addiction to oil.. This war is looking like a 2 - 3 trillion exercise now.. The US could have gone and given every man woman and child in Iraq 20,000 USD (based on about a 2 trillion number I think I read 5k for the 500 bn official war costs numbers) and never risked a life, bought the country !! But imagine the potential if instead of chasing that oil, the money had been spend on alternative energy grants, had (what America does so well) the best and brightest on it.. Had made that drive to clean energy.

Not only would it not have had a war, would have reduced Americas dependence on others, reduced arab / islam / anti western influence over us, not only all those good things. But America would again be an innovator, hold the patents, have the best technology and could earn from that industry too.

Lets not forget now the 'cost' of this war, not just in lives but to americans in the pocket book. These are big numbers, so people have trouble actually visualizing how much America could have done for itself. But each American will directly lose about 6,600 USD (2tn / 300m).. Thats every man woman and child !! Not every non governmental breadwinner (I dont know the ratio for that... Kev ??) Lets say 1 in 3 people are of working age employed in a non Gov job.. That means every working person in the US is looking at a personal cost of about 19k USD !!! Its insane !!

I mean what it would pay in medicare, in schools, free higher education, in gov programs, in buying global goodwill and winning hearts and minds, it just boggles the mind. And what have we got for that expenditure ?? Some rich war contractors and a massive boondoggle that will haunt us for years. GWB your a pr1ck !!

Lockeed Martin, Boeing, GM, haliburton,Blackwater, GE, The US army, Micheal moore, All these companies and people pay income and capital taxes so how do you really add up the cost of war???? Are you including how much the govt gets back in taxes?????

[So-cal]

Originally Posted by Simbo

You cheese eating surrender monkey 55555555555555 and lets look at which corporations the current top Administration officials go to work for after the erections. Unfortunately wars are good for the economy.

yeah, George Bush really wants a Lambo, maybe cheney wants a Ferarri. You can make it look as bad as you want but i think these guys actually care about the country and could have found easier ways of simply getting rich

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by So-cal

Lockeed Martin, Boeing, GM, haliburton,Blackwater, GE, The US army, Micheal moore, All these companies and people pay income and capital taxes so how do you really add up the cost of war???? Are you including how much the govt gets back in taxes?????

People have added up the cost in lost production, increased oil prices, and direct costs as being over 2 trillion (heading to 3 in some estimates).. Thats lost GDP (you do get that concept.. GDP ??).. A drain to the US economy, one that now has to be borne by the US citizenship for this choice to go to war that they would not have if they didnt go to war.

The number is so large that it is hard for many people to process. 2,000,000,000,000 USD Thats the total 'cost of war' including indirect costs like future soldier medical commitments, loss of economic production etc. That amount would (ballpark numbers here)

600,000,000 People with Health Care for One Year OR
2,000,000,000 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR
44,000,000 Public Safety Officers for One year OR
36,000,000 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR
320,000,000 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR
120,000 New Elementary Schools OR
16,000,000 Affordable Housing Units OR
1,000,000,000 Children with Health Care for One Year OR
280,000,000 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR
30,000,000 Port Container Inspectors for One year

The actual costs to the average American for this are just so high economically. People who dont think about the concept just assume 'its paid for somehow out of taxes'.. As though they go to Fort Knox and get some gold out of storage.. Well I got news, The government is already in debt and those taxes need paying !!

[Dupree00]

Why we're really in Iraq


I think the best answer can be found at the end of Sydney Pollack's 1975 spy flick, Three Days of the Condor. Robert Redford's character (Joe Turner) is talking to CIA agent Higgins (played by Cliff Robertson) about the no-longer-secret plan to invade the Middle East for oil.

Higgins: The fact is, it wasn't a bad plan. It could've worked.

Turner: Jesus -- What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

Higgins: It's simple economics, Turner... There's no argument. Oil now, 10 or 15 years it'll be food, or plutonium. Maybe sooner than that. What do you think the people will want us to do then?

Turner: Ask them!

Higgins: Now? (shakes head) Huh-uh. Ask them when they're running out. When it's cold at home and the engines stop and people who aren't used to hunger... go hungry! They won't want us to ask... (quiet savagery) They'll want us to GET it for them.

[Lightemup]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

And now we come to some of the more realistic reasons for the war.. The ability to have US bases and influence deep within the region.

Sorry for keeping this thread offtopic with regards to the OP, but just wanted to add this point of view.

Basically yes.

The Afghanistan war was a retaliation against Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks, but the reason for the Iraq invasion was to execute a geopolitical strategy to secure a large victory against a country in the islamic world, because the Afghan invasion was in fact not a succes as many think/thought at that time.
Tora Bora was a big disaster, some of the local tribes in the alliance refused to go into action on the final push and so escaped Osama Bin Laden from Tora Bora.

Islamist fundamentalists like AQ, do not think the US has the stomach for anything prolonged using references to Vietnam (Eventual withdrawal and country lost to the commies) and think that the retaliations for the African embassy bombings were weak and ineffective. Now that OBL and his leadership escaped from Tora Bora and are still roaming free, they feel that the US cant win in an islamist country.

So the idea with the Iraq war was to secure a victory and gain a stronghold and show the fundamentalist islamists that the US can secure a victory in an islamic country in the heart of the islamic world. Later on it progressed to "will keep going when the going gets tough and not withdraw" (Hence the "Surge" strategy of putting more people in, when everyone was saying the war was lost) against all odds people were giving it, it worked.

The fact that we were all fed a bunch of lies from all our governments regarding this war, WMD's, Terror links etc. Im pissed off about that myself.
I would have gone to war if they had just said, Saddam is a bad guy, lets get rid of him....Heck, I'll fight anyone, just point me in the right direction.

Sorry again for keep this off topic, but I felt I needed to put this into perspective.

[Lightemup]

But why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia, when the oil is there and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals?

Saudi Arabia is the holiest land in the islamic world, housing Medina and Mecca imagine what would happen if Infidels took over these holy sites?
World War III perhaps?

So it became Iraq, because it borders 6 other islamic countries
(Turkey too, although they are NATO members, they are mostly Islamic and the US counted on using airspace and land to build up and launch through turkey) and so the US is able to "control" access to the Iraqi oil supply and also the Saudi oil supply is kept in check, and the US force acts as a buffer against Iranian geopolitical force projections against saudi oil supply and keeps the Shia in Iran and the Sunnis in Saudi from each other.
And on the other side of Iran is Afghanistan, so its pinched in, and they know it, hence the proxy war the Iranians are fighting in the south of Iraq and the support they give elsewhere in the country to the militias.

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by Lightemup

Islamist fundamentalists like AQ, do not think the US has the stomach for anything prolonged using references to Vietnam (Eventual withdrawal and country lost to the commies) and think that the retaliations for the African embassy bombings were weak and ineffective.

Curious.. Do you think they are being proven right ??

when everyone was saying the war was lost) against all odds people were giving it, it worked.

The surge did work.. But the question is for how long ?? Look at how long the mujahadin fought with nothing against the ruskies..

To restore order would take perhaps 300k troops ( ?? ) and an ongoing 50 - 100 for years which the US just doesnt have the stomach for.

The fact that we were all fed a bunch of lies from all our governments regarding this war, WMD's, Terror links etc. Im pissed off about that myself.
I would have gone to war if they had just said, Saddam is a bad guy, lets get rid of him....

I dont know how far along that road I go.. I mean I agree without a doubt Saddam was a ruthless nasty son of a b1tch.. But looking at the history of the region, no one has been able to rule those divided people without being a ruthless nasty son of a *****, the idea we could just topple Saddam and say heres your ballot slips, this is how this democracy thing works.. Thats just kids stories.

Now we may well end up with Muqtada.. An even more anti western hardline fundamentalist SOB.. Are we going to go remove him too ??

I could point out no one bothers removing Mugabe.. So pretending that the oil is irrelevant is hard to really swallow.

EDIT :: I agree 100% with your assessment in the second post.

[Lightemup]

On the "stomach for the fight" issue:
As long as there is a republican govt. Im not sure they are being proven right.
Now when the Democrats come into govt in the future (At one point they will, not neccessarily next election, even though I think it) its a different matter. They will most likely make a cover my ass and run from Iraq. But who knows, I/we might get proven wrong there.

Im not sure that your figure of 300k is correct as the idea with the "Surge" is to get relative stability and turn the people towards the govt and train the local troops to do their own combat. 300k might be correct, if you didnt have anyone else, but the idea is to get the Iraqis to take care of their own problems.

Obviously oil is a big part of the US's geopolitical moves. You know, to preserve "the American way of life" and all that crap.

But hey Im all for taking Mugabe out, the Junta in Myanmar, etc. Where do I sign up?

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by Lightemup

But hey Im all for taking Mugabe out, the Junta in Myanmar, etc. Where do I sign up?

Back pages of Soldier of Fortune ??

[Lightemup]

Sorry, those adds went away many years ago
(The specific Gun for Hire adds that is, still a classified section there tho)

[LivinLOS]

All gone online now has it ??

[Dupree00]

Kinda makes you miss the days of the puppet regime strategy. Comparing the cost (money and lives on both sides). What would the invaded country choose if it had a choice?

[ub2yoo]

Originally Posted by Lightemup

But why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia, when the oil is there

I don't know too much about it to have a qualified response, all I can say from what I see, Saudi is changing dramatically over the past years.

They are opening up big time for business of all sorts. I.e. for many US originated IT companies, Saudi makes up 40% of their total revenue of the whole of the Middle-East! There's a lot of focus and investments from international companies in Saudi at the moment.

My personal experience doing business over there is very pleasant. I'm treated with respected and it's a very friendly atmosphere. I'm there almost on a weekly bases.

Also shopping centers are raising like mushrooms full of Starbucks, McDonalds, London Fish&Chips, Cinamom etc. Many of the younger girls are starting to play around in quite innovative & fashion ways with their burkas and I hear rumours it's just a matter of time till the first cinemas will open.

Well, like I say, I got no other deeper knowledge of the country in regards to the discussion running here, but from gut feeling and day to day business I can see that with care taking of good political relationships, this is going in the right direction.

It doesn't look like a country which is closed&mystic and spreads fear, it's rather developing the other way around.

[faultytowers]

Originally Posted by ub2yoo

I don't know too much about it to have a qualified response, all I can say from what I see, Saudi is changing dramatically over the past years.

They are opening up big time for business of all sorts. I.e. for many US originated IT companies, Saudi makes up 40% of their total revenue of the whole of the Middle-East! There's a lot of focus and investments from international companies in Saudi at the moment.

My personal experience doing business over there is very pleasant. I'm treated with respected and it's a very friendly atmosphere. I'm there almost on a weekly bases.

Also shopping centers are raising like mushrooms full of Starbucks, McDonalds, London Fish&Chips, Cinamom etc. Many of the younger girls are starting to play around in quite innovative & fashion ways with their burkas and I hear rumours it's just a matter of time till the first cinemas will open.

Well, like I say, I got no other deeper knowledge of the country in regards to the discussion running here, but from gut feeling and day to day business I can see that with care taking of good political relationships, this is going in the right direction.

It doesn't look like a country which is closed&mystic and spreads fear, it's rather developing the other way around.

I worked and lived in Saudi for a long time and have to disagree with you on a few points.

Whilst there are a lot of "Western" influences in the major cities (Riyadh/Jeddah/Dharan etc) , it is this "Americanization" that is breeding the unrest in the fundamentalists. It is not the wealthy Saudis that cause problems (but probably finance it !!!!) but the poor (and there are lots of them) , uneducated ones who hear the anti-Western rhetoric every Friday at prayers.

A lot of what goes on out there never reaches the press , and the "religious police" still have so much power that only a few years ago , this happened :

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.

A lot of the "Western World" ignored (turned a blind eye) to what was going on in Saudi (human rights abuses etc) due to the need to keep the oil flowing . After "Gulf 1" , a lot of the Saudi population were "radicalized" by the fact that the "Infidels" had bases in their country and were disobeying their "holy" rules (women driving/not covering their hair etc). This then became the breeding ground for those who "took their revenge" on 9/11.

Whilst they may give the outward appearance of being a civilized , developed country , a lot of money/support is quietly making it's way to "radicals" in many areas of the world (Palestine and Iraq to name two).

OK , rant over !!!! But the one point that Lightemup made is very revelent "why not Saudi ??". In 1986 the then Saudi king (Fahd bin Abdul Aziz) took on the title "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" , thereby ensuring that any "infidal" attack on the country would be seen as an attack on the "Muslim Nation".