Iraq and Its Costs

[Tigermike 3,078]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

So the war on international terrorists should be limited to only those involved in 9/11? I don't think so.

[RunInRed 16,528]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

So the war on international terrorists should be limited to only those involved in 9/11? I don't think so.

So what was the basis for invading Iraq? WMDs? Oh wait, they did not have any.

[Tigermike 3,078]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

Obviously I took a page out of your book. So providing information about a site is attacking the source? BS.

When you post info from a website with a leftist agenda then people have the right to know all the facts. One of those facts is where your info came from and the agenda of your source.

When a site is set up only to promote a leftist agenda, any figures they provide are questionable at best. Are out and out lies at worse.

If a fact I provided is disputable then why don't you provide better documentation to back up your claims of it being false? The documentation I provided sited direct costs of the war. Are you saying they are too high? Too low? Do you have better numbers? What was unfactual about the information? HELLO?

Just tell the truth, you didn't like the facts because you don't like what they say...so you try to marginalize the source in hopes the weight of the truth will be succumbed by your nonsense. Nice try...but its not going to work. We have 4000+ dead, it's costing us well over $300M/day in taxpayer money, we have no strategy that makes any sense, we are mediating a civil war, and all you on the right can do is stick your head in the sand, pretend everything is rosy, and shout "stay the course." No thanks. Thank G_d the American people will reject the biggest foreign policy mistake of this generation in November. Thank G_d.

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

So have the plots been spoiled due to military intelligence or work done by the DHS that is completely separate? I have heard it was the later.

Didn't the 9/11 commission conclude that there should be more and better intelligence sharing? How do we know the intelligence DHS has acted on originate in the US? Don't most of the plots originate overseas? Then were supposed to be carried out by locals?

[Tigermike 3,078]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

So the war on international terrorists should be limited to only those involved in 9/11? I don't think so.

So what was the basis for invading Iraq? WMDs? Oh wait, they did not have any.

They didn't? Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the Iranians.

While you are at it comment on this.

[channonc 466]

So have the plots been spoiled due to military intelligence or work done by the DHS that is completely separate? I have heard it was the later.

Didn't the 9/11 commission conclude that there should be more and better intelligence sharing? How do we know the intelligence DHS has acted on originate in the US? Don't most of the plots originate overseas? Then were supposed to be carried out by locals?

So, how would military fighting in Iraq have any bearing one way or another on our intelligence sharing between foreign law enforcement agencies?

[RunInRed 16,528]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

So the war on international terrorists should be limited to only those involved in 9/11? I don't think so.

So what was the basis for invading Iraq? WMDs? Oh wait, they did not have any.

They didn't? Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the Iranians.

While you are at it comment on this.

No they did not. And independent report after independent report has confirmed this. We also found no WMDs. HELLO TM...have you been paying attention?

[CCTAU 3,355]

So what was the basis for invading Iraq? WMDs? Oh wait, they did not have any.

That would have been 14 UN resolutions ignored. Of which WMDs, and other weapons development was the reason for the resolutions in the first place. It's OK to hold the match. But if you strike it, prepare to be burned. Sadaam struck the match......14 times.

[Tigermike 3,078]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

So the war on international terrorists should be limited to only those involved in 9/11? I don't think so.

So what was the basis for invading Iraq? WMDs? Oh wait, they did not have any.

They didn't? Tell that to the Kurds. Tell that to the Iranians.

While you are at it comment on this.

No they did not. And independent report after independent report has confirmed this. We also found no WMDs. HELLO TM...have you been paying attention?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is that embedded in your DNA? Get your head out of your ass and tell the truth. I realize that would be hard for a follower of Obama the great liar, but just try.

Anfal 'ethnic cleansing' campaign against Kurds, 1988

Between February and September 1988 Saddam Hussein ordered a massive displacement operation, known as the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign, against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq.

Victims of the Halabja attack, 1988

Halabja was attacked with chemical bombs

The operation was orchestrated by Saddam Hussein's cousin, General Ali Hassan al-Majid.

Hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed to the ground. Chemical weapons were also used.

Eyewitness accounts, documents seized from Iraqi security organs during the post-1991 Gulf War uprising and information gathered by international human rights groups indicate that up to 182,000 people were killed.

Gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988

In August 1988, during the Anfal campaign, Iraqi forces attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with bombs containing a mixture of mustard and nerve gases.

An estimated 5,000 civilians, including women, children and babies, were killed in a single day.

Gen Majid ordered the attack, earning the notorious epithet Chemical Ali.

Invasion of Kuwait, 1990

In August 1990 Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War in January 1991.

Iraqi soldiers are alleged to have tortured and summarily executed prisoners and to have looted Kuwait City and taken hundreds of Kuwaiti captives back to Baghdad.

Iraqi soldiers also set light to more than 700 oil wells and opened pipelines to let oil pour into the Gulf and other water sources.

Crushing the Kurdish and Shia rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War

After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein took revenge on the northern Kurds and Shia Muslims in southern Iraq, who rose up against the regime.

The Iraqi army suppressed the uprisings using massive military force and drained the southern marsh lands which had sustained a way of life dating back around 5,000 years.

Their habitat destroyed, many of the indigenous Arabs fled to surrounding countries.

Killing political activists over 30 years

Evidence has emerged of 270 mass graves across Iraq which are believed to hold the remains of possibly tens of thousands of people.

The UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the Iraqi regime in 2001 for "widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences".

Thousands of Shia Muslims arrested on charges of supporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution have never been accounted for.

Massacre of members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983

In July 1983, Iraqi security forces arrested about 8,000 male members of the Barzani clan in the northern province of Arbil. They were transported to southern Iraq and have not been heard of since.

Killing of religious leaders in 1974

In July 1974, the Iraqi regime arrested dozens of Shia religious leaders, and executed five of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm

[arnaldoabru 11]

But we didn't invade to protect the Kurds.As a matter of fact, didn't Turkey just invade Iraq to fight the Kurds.Why didn't we stop Turkey?

[AUesquire 1]

The back and forth here is very entertaining and you do realize no one is going to give an inch on their position...don't you?

I have to ask one quick favor though. Could we possibly make a post with out highliting the last 6 pages in each one? Hmm? Okay thanks. Carry on.

[arnaldoabru 11]

SHIA AND KURDISH UPRISINGS 1991

"One the evening of Feb 24, 1991, a radio station called THE VOICE OF FREE IRAQ,based in Saudi Arabia, funded and ran by the CIA, broadcast a message to the people of Iraq to rise and overthrow Saddam

THEY DID RISE AND THIS IS OUR RESPONSE

"Officials downplayed the significance of the revolts and spelled out a policy of non intervention in Iraq's internal affairs"

Sec of Defense Dick Cheney "it would be difficult for us to hold the coalition together for any particular course of action dealing with INTERNAL Iraqi politics"

Dep Dir Joint Chiefs Martin Brandtner "There is NO move on the US forces... to let any weapons slip through(to the rebels), or play any role whatsoever in formenting or assisting any side"

State Dept Spokemen Richard Blucher "We don't think that OUTSIDE POWERS should be INTERFERING in the INTERNAL AFFAIRS of Iraq"

"Consequently, US Occupation forces who were stationed only a few miles from Nasiriyah,Samawa, and Basra did nothing to help the rebels who rose up"

We encourged them, then hung'em out to dry

[GoAU 1,612]

No they did not. And independent report after independent report has confirmed this. We also found no WMDs. HELLO TM...have you been paying attention?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Although it wasn't the huge smoking gun we thought we would find, it's more than enough to prove a point (and to prove you wrong). What is worse - a country that has WMDs, or a government that looses them? Would you prefer that some of these "misplaced" WMDs find the hands of terrorists? It would be a little late, but we would have rock solid proof then right? Of course then the libs would cry the whole "we should have done something" game.

Bottom line:

1) He did possess chemical weapons in violation of UN decree

2) He dispelled UN weapons inspectors on numerous occasions - in addition to blocking and stalling.

3) He fired at US warplanes in a "no fire zone" - in and of itself could be an act of war

4) Openly and financially supported terrorism

The bottom line is he played his little games during a period of time that as a nation we were particulary sensative to what terrorism can do to us. Unfortunately many seem to have forgotten the pain of watching smoking buildings and American dying on our own soil. Saddam did everything he could to make himself appear guilty - he bluffed and got called out.

[bigsixfive 328]

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Does Saddam giving a top AQ operative a cushy government job count as AQ in Iraq?

[RunInRed 16,528]

"The original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder. Now, the two biggest problems - Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region - are a direct result of that original decision."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/75803.html

[GoAU 1,612]

"I continue to believe that The original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder. Now, the two biggest problems - Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region - are a direct result of that original decision."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/75803.html

There, I fixed that for you - it's an opinion, not a fast. Nor did he say anything about how he would handle the situartion, other than a timetable to withdraw and "pressure". That's barely a notch above Kerry and his "plan" that was never elaborated on. The bottom line is as soon as you hang yourself by a timeline, you have given the enemy hope, actually more than hope, you give him a finish line - "all I have to do is hold on until _____ and the US will leave and we will have won". It really is that simple.

No comment on the WMDs that were found in Iraq eh? Much like the mainstream lib media, just ignore it and the masses may not notice, then we can continue to play a very one sided version of Monday morning QB in Iraq....

[RunInRed 16,528]

"I continue to believe that The original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder. Now, the two biggest problems - Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region - are a direct result of that original decision."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/75803.html

There, I fixed that for you - it's an opinion, not a fast. Nor did he say anything about how he would handle the situartion, other than a timetable to withdraw and "pressure". That's barely a notch above Kerry and his "plan" that was never elaborated on. The bottom line is as soon as you hang yourself by a timeline, you have given the enemy hope, actually more than hope, you give him a finish line - "all I have to do is hold on until _____ and the US will leave and we will have won". It really is that simple.

No comment on the WMDs that were found in Iraq eh? Much like the mainstream lib media, just ignore it and the masses may not notice, then we can continue to play a very one sided version of Monday morning QB in Iraq....

Yes, it was his opinion, which was pretty obvious by the link of HIM speaking.

Let me ask you this...what is the current plan? What is McCain's plan? B/c all I've heard is stay the course, mediate a civil war, "hope" the different factions decide to one day get along, have political reconciliation, and form a democracy in the middle east. Hmmmm sounds like a great plan that has been working so wondrfully.

You are still stuck on this WMDs thing huh? Get over it, the stock piles weren't there. The intelligence was wrong and every one knows it but you and fox news.

[Tigermike 3,078]

You are still stuck on this WMDs thing huh? Get over it, the stock piles weren't there. The intelligence was wrong and every one knows it but you and fox news.

link

[GoAU 1,612]

You are still stuck on this WMDs thing huh? Get over it, the stock piles weren't there. The intelligence was wrong and every one knows it but you and fox news.

The stockpiles weren't there? I thought you said there were NO WMDs. Let me check a second, oh wait - here it is:

We also found no WMDs. HELLO TM...have you been paying attention?

Yup, you said no WMDs. How many WMDs need to be released in NYC during rush hour to be deemed important or a "stockpile".

As for McCains plan:

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

Implement New Counterinsurgency Strategy

For most of the occupation, military strategy has focused on securing all of Iraq by establishing bases and conducting short operations from them. Ultimately, this secured only small areas of the country. John McCain believes the current force structure and power vacuum persisting in many areas of the country demands a more robust counterinsurgency strategy. Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by insurgents but to stay and hold these areas to deny them as a base for insurgent forces and allow economic and political development to occur in a secure environment. By emphasizing safety of the local population, this strategy will create strongholds in which insurgents find it difficult to operate.

Strengthen the Iraqi Armed Forces and Police

Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq's ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure environment will the development of Iraq's political and economic institutions have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security.

Create the security necessary for political progress and stability

John McCain believes that only by controlling the violence in Iraq can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the Iraqi government wields greater authority, it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own. These include a commitment to go after the militias, a reconciliation process for insurgents and Baathists, more equitable distribution of government resources, provincial elections that will bring Sunnis into the government, and a large increase in employment-generating economic projects.

Accelerate political and economic reconstruction in a secure environment

While it is crucial to focus military efforts on insurgents, particularly against Sunni fighters using violence to strengthen their political position, John McCain believes there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance.

In territories newly secured by the "clear, hold, and build" counterinsurgency strategy, many of the critical steps to succeeding in Iraq can begin to be implemented. Massive reconstruction can go forward without overwhelming fear of attack and sabotage. A substantial employment program can begin to give hope and opportunity to Iraqi citizens. Political meetings and campaigning can take place more freely. Average Iraqis will be more secure as militias and terrorists are reigned in and violence reduced. All of this will help civil society to emerge and deepen.

Iraqis need to see tangible improvements in their daily lives or support for the new government will falter. Sunnis need to know that if they abandon violence they will have a role in the political process, and the Shia need to know that security will be provided by coalition and government forces - not by private militias. Kurds need assurance that their gains will not be jeopardized by sectarian violence. All Iraqis must be able to look forward to a future of growing security and prosperity overseen by a competent, representative government free of corruption and sectarian conflict.

Keep Senior Officers in Place

The Pentagon has adopted a policy of rotating our generals in and out of Iraq almost as frequently as the rotating of troops. John McCain believes this to be a deeply flawed practice. If these are, in fact, the best leaders for the task, they should remain on the job as long as possible. These generals and other senior officers with experience possess critical situational awareness and expertise necessary to prevail.

Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran

John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.

The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country.

Win the Homefront

If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world.

The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope. The stakes for America could not be higher.

John McCain on Leadership

"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country's vital interests in Iraq."

Seems like a much better plan to me.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Sounds like more of the same to me.