Costs of occupation spiral.

raid517 · Sep 14, 2003, 05:00 AM

Well here we are, the morning after the night before. And what a hangover we have. A country that previously was quiet and subdued on the world stage and that by all reasonable assessments posed little risk to the international community, has now been transformed into a hot bed of international terrorism. Every young Arab in the world with an axe to grind has now taken a sabbatical in Iraq to take part in an open season on British and American soldiers. Meanwhile the costs of the war spiral. $60 billion in total cost so far, $4 billion a week to maintain current administration and military support levels, 87 billion pledged to deal with these costs over the next budget period, and no out or possible improvement in sight. Now G. W. has in desperation turned to the UN, his previous worst enemy, to ask for help. And guess what? Yep there are a lot in the UN who say old George should be hung out to dry. After all, why should they be dragged into this folly, when most of them advised against it in the first place?

There is only one possible out for the US and UK now and that is helicopters on the roof of the American Baghdad embassy.... I find it utterly incredible that none of the American right saw this coming, most sensible people (including many on this board) have warned about exactly this kind of outcome from the beginning.

So what i wonder are board members views now... Do they still think it was all worthwhile, and are they happy to continue to pick up the tab for what is essentially likely to be an indefinite period?

Your views please.

Q

JavaFox · Sep 14, 2003, 05:11 AM

It was definitely worthwhile, and most Americans agree. Fact is, the terrorists and fighters now streaming into Iraq were not previously peaceful people. We would have seen them somewhere, sometime. Our occupation is not breeding terrorists, it is merely bringing them out into the light. No, I think this war was definitely worthwhile as an enforcement action, as a liberation campaign, and as a mighty blow against regional terrorism. Most of what you've stated is exaggeration at best, and dishonestly selective at worst.

I really do not understand your viewpoint. You were against ousting the man in the first place. You expect reconstruction and reinstitution of an Iraqi regime to occur within the span of several months. You are surprised when there are casualties after major operations are over. And when all those things don't go the way you expected, you see the abrupt departure of the US and UK as the endgame?

Excuse me? You are complaining that we screwed up a "quiet and subdued" nation only to show your dissaproval of staying the course? Leaving Iraq now would be horrible, whether or not you agreed with the invasion or not. The Marshall Plan was a four-year program. To expect the rebuilding of Iraq to take any less time is to engage in folly.

We Americans are by and large willing to shoulder any cost to bring Iraq into the fold of civilized nations -- we owe it to them, and we owe it to ourselves.

raid517 · Sep 14, 2003, 06:27 AM

We shall see. Republicans eager to bare the brunt of massive tax bills? That is a novel idea.

My sense of events is that even if you do not feel you should be backing out of things now, your government very much is. They realise the cost is impractical (and it is) hence the new willingness (or should I say anxiousness?) to work with the UN. Worse than that G. W. is now even talking to the French and asking them for their help. If that is not an admission of defeat I don't know what is. I like the way you twist things to say how the terrorists streaming into Iraq were always out to get America anyway. Well it was at least good of you to make a nice target for them to aim at...

I am not saying you should leave, but I am saying I think you will. I do not think 3 years down the road when nothing has improved (indeed when as is likely, things have gotten significantly worse) the American people will be so keen to keep paying out.

And if terrorism continues to increase in Iraq, which is virtually inevitable, how exactly do you plan an honourable withdrawal? How can it be anything other than yet another case of helicopters on an American embassy roof?

A basic military principal and one that has been understood since before the days of the Greeks, is you should always have an out - and that is something I just don't see here.

At least the Marshal plan was a plan and it is this kind of forward thinking that is utterly lacking here.

Q

FuNsTeR · Sep 14, 2003, 04:04 PM

still say it is wrong where are theese so called WMD that this invasion was all about ... now that they can't find any .. they have changed their tune .... Tony Blairs head will fall for his false hoods ... Vietnam part 2 watch your wealth drain away

Falstaff · Sep 14, 2003, 06:23 PM

The cost of the occupation will be born by U.N. interests within time. 140,000 to 150.000 american troops will be slowly assert a level of control that can be sustained then the U.N. might move in. I wasn't against the French Timetable, but in retrospect it was unrealistic, there are many IRAQI criminals waiting for the chance to strike.

FuNsTeR · Sep 14, 2003, 06:27 PM

so Jeff how do you work out its gonna be paid for the UN .... if the UN voted against an invasion of Iraq

Falstaff · Sep 14, 2003, 10:43 PM

The U.N. will bear the burden, as all nations that contribute, to the overall management of the transition, but I do not see more...I personally would like to see the IRAQI people rise up and capture the goal themselves...There are many that would find comfort in the presidential palace, but they are jackels and thieves, it might take an honorable man or woman to assume power from the fundamentalists and the thugs..both vying for power. we leave tommorow, and the bad guys will win for sure, they held the power before Saddam fell and they still hold it now in abscentia...Saddam is not dead to anyone..so the world waits with anticipation the whereabouts and remains of a defunct leader..sigh...

Sep 14, 2003, 05:00 AM	#1
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Costs of occupation spiral. Well here we are, the morning after the night before. And what a hangover we have. A country that previously was quiet and subdued on the world stage and that by all reasonable assessments posed little risk to the international community, has now been transformed into a hot bed of international terrorism. Every young Arab in the world with an axe to grind has now taken a sabbatical in Iraq to take part in an open season on British and American soldiers. Meanwhile the costs of the war spiral. $60 billion in total cost so far, $4 billion a week to maintain current administration and military support levels, 87 billion pledged to deal with these costs over the next budget period, and no out or possible improvement in sight. Now G. W. has in desperation turned to the UN, his previous worst enemy, to ask for help. And guess what? Yep there are a lot in the UN who say old George should be hung out to dry. After all, why should they be dragged into this folly, when most of them advised against it in the first place? There is only one possible out for the US and UK now and that is helicopters on the roof of the American Baghdad embassy.... I find it utterly incredible that none of the American right saw this coming, most sensible people (including many on this board) have warned about exactly this kind of outcome from the beginning. So what i wonder are board members views now... Do they still think it was all worthwhile, and are they happy to continue to pick up the tab for what is essentially likely to be an indefinite period? Your views please. Q

Sep 14, 2003, 04:04 PM	#4
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	still say it is wrong where are theese so called WMD that this invasion was all about ... now that they can't find any .. they have changed their tune .... Tony Blairs head will fall for his false hoods ... Vietnam part 2 watch your wealth drain away __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Sep 14, 2003, 06:23 PM	#5
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	The cost of the occupation will be born by U.N. interests within time. 140,000 to 150.000 american troops will be slowly assert a level of control that can be sustained then the U.N. might move in. I wasn't against the French Timetable, but in retrospect it was unrealistic, there are many IRAQI criminals waiting for the chance to strike. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Sep 14, 2003, 06:27 PM	#6
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	so Jeff how do you work out its gonna be paid for the UN .... if the UN voted against an invasion of Iraq __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Sep 14, 2003, 10:43 PM	#7
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	The U.N. will bear the burden, as all nations that contribute, to the overall management of the transition, but I do not see more...I personally would like to see the IRAQI people rise up and capture the goal themselves...There are many that would find comfort in the presidential palace, but they are jackels and thieves, it might take an honorable man or woman to assume power from the fundamentalists and the thugs..both vying for power. we leave tommorow, and the bad guys will win for sure, they held the power before Saddam fell and they still hold it now in abscentia...Saddam is not dead to anyone..so the world waits with anticipation the whereabouts and remains of a defunct leader..sigh... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Sep 14, 2003, 05:11 AM	#2
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	It was definitely worthwhile, and most Americans agree. Fact is, the terrorists and fighters now streaming into Iraq were not previously peaceful people. We would have seen them somewhere, sometime. Our occupation is not breeding terrorists, it is merely bringing them out into the light. No, I think this war was definitely worthwhile as an enforcement action, as a liberation campaign, and as a mighty blow against regional terrorism. Most of what you've stated is exaggeration at best, and dishonestly selective at worst. I really do not understand your viewpoint. You were against ousting the man in the first place. You expect reconstruction and reinstitution of an Iraqi regime to occur within the span of several months. You are surprised when there are casualties after major operations are over. And when all those things don't go the way you expected, you see the abrupt departure of the US and UK as the endgame? Excuse me? You are complaining that we screwed up a "quiet and subdued" nation only to show your dissaproval of staying the course? Leaving Iraq now would be horrible, whether or not you agreed with the invasion or not. The Marshall Plan was a four-year program. To expect the rebuilding of Iraq to take any less time is to engage in folly. We Americans are by and large willing to shoulder any cost to bring Iraq into the fold of civilized nations -- we owe it to them, and we owe it to ourselves.

Sep 14, 2003, 06:27 AM	Thread Starter #3
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	We shall see. Republicans eager to bare the brunt of massive tax bills? That is a novel idea. My sense of events is that even if you do not feel you should be backing out of things now, your government very much is. They realise the cost is impractical (and it is) hence the new willingness (or should I say anxiousness?) to work with the UN. Worse than that G. W. is now even talking to the French and asking them for their help. If that is not an admission of defeat I don't know what is. I like the way you twist things to say how the terrorists streaming into Iraq were always out to get America anyway. Well it was at least good of you to make a nice target for them to aim at... I am not saying you should leave, but I am saying I think you will. I do not think 3 years down the road when nothing has improved (indeed when as is likely, things have gotten significantly worse) the American people will be so keen to keep paying out. And if terrorism continues to increase in Iraq, which is virtually inevitable, how exactly do you plan an honourable withdrawal? How can it be anything other than yet another case of helicopters on an American embassy roof? A basic military principal and one that has been understood since before the days of the Greeks, is you should always have an out - and that is something I just don't see here. At least the Marshal plan was a plan and it is this kind of forward thinking that is utterly lacking here. Q