• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Iraqi War Costing U.S. $15 Billion Monthly

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
What do you guys think about the war in Iraq? Recent reports show that it is costing the US $15 BILLION every single month. That's a lot of money that we technically don't have, considering our national debt is well into the trillions.

I think it was initially justified, and I agree with the fact that Saddam was taken out. I also agree with the idea that Osama Bin-Ladin and AlQaida need to be taken out, BUT, at this point I don't think Iraq is the key to that.

That being said, I'm not sure what the best exit strategy is. In the one hand, if we leave immediately, the civil wars in Iraq will be decided quickly, and perhaps the person who steps into power will be somebody who hates the US, regardless of the fact that the US did in fact stop Saddam, who murdered millions of his own people.

In the other hand, we could work with Iraq to get a new government in place over the next few years, and eventually leave, and even then a civil war could put all of our work to waste.

Can a tyrannical leader be avoided though? And is it our responsibility to ensure that Iraq works with the US to establish a certain level of government there? What do you guys think?
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
Can a tyrannical leader be avoided though? And is it our responsibility to ensure that Iraq works with the US to establish a certain level of government there? What do you guys think?
I'll paraphrase the words of Joe Biden here. What exists in Iraq is ongoing sectarian violence. There are four possible endgames to ongoing sectarian violence.

1. The parties kill each other.
2. A dictator is imposed (Saddam v. 2.0)
3. An empire takes them over.
4. There is a federal system under a loose central government.

Only the fourth ensures a democratic government. There is a place to look for guidance, the Balkans. Yugoslavia was an artificial state created that meshed various religious and ethnic groups that were jumbled together from the Austrian and Ottoman empires. The second method was used, Yugoslavia for decades was run by Tito, a dictator, and there was minimal sectarian violence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the artificial union engaged in ongoing sectarian violence until they were all separated into democratic, homogeneous states, a combination of the first and fourth (mostly people fled where they were the minority).

Iraq is not and never will be a true state. It was created by the British imperialists in 1925. Its borders are artificial. With this, one must ask:

Why does maintaining Iraq with a central government matter?

We can do two things:

1. We can partition Iraq into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. The Kurds have largely made their own region, and it's remarkably peaceful minus Kirkuk and the Turks attacking the Kurdish rebels. The Shi'a are largely peaceful in the south. Because of this, the Sunnis do not have to be a political minority, which they will never accept because they've been in opposition to the Shi'a for well over a millenia.

2. We can impose a central government like we currently are. From this two things can occur

-The government turns into a Shi'a-run totalitarian state. They are the majority and are vengeful of the Sunnis which slaughtered them under Saddam. They already attack Sunnis in organized militias, and would love to use the Army for the same purpose (which they largely already do in Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad).

-The government loses authority, and Iraq splits in to three constituent portions.
=

We can control one, but we can't control the other. It makes sense to guide the partition process so we can help rebuild infrastructure, and eventually just have a token peacekeeping force, and perhaps the UN as well. If we let Iraq dissolve (which it will, because it's an artificial state), the subsequent war will be volatile and will destroy much of the remaining infrastructure.
=

There's a solution, and we can do it. Let's stop wasting money in a stalemate. Let's be proactive and do what EVERY SINGLE LEADER SAYS, including the Iraqi president: create a political solution.
 

Brandon77

Registered Member
I kind of like Donald Trumps answer to how do you get out of Iraq. "You leave."..."You declare victory, and you get out of there."

At this point, I am not sure I support the war. For so long republicans have blindly accepted the war because that has been the stand of the party as a whole. Its a big issue of groupthink, and it's not right. What is this war accomplishing, now that Saddam has now been removed and executed? We are trying to establish democracy in a country where there is civil war. ?????

I support the soldiers and the troops, and do not want to discredit what they are doing over there. I view myself as a patriotic person. But what about the 15 billion that is getting poured into Iraq each month? What about spending 15 billion to help those in Africa with aids? What about all the other things that could be done? Heck, we as a country don't really have the money to be throwing it into the wind like kites with no strings. To me, it just doesn't look like we are accomplishing much. Who is on our side over there?

I just talked to two soldiers who recently came back from Iraq, and I would love to say that they had good reports, but that simply is not the case. The overwhelming response I got from them is that it is frustrating to see that there is really nothing being done over there. There is no progress. They said it is a waste of time and money, and more than that, it is a waste of lives: both of Americans and Iraqis.

Hearing this really changed my perspective. The news doesn't show what the soldiers say. It says what it wants to say. Fox news tells the republican side. CNN tells the democratic side. It is all so filtered. Anyways, after years of being behind the war, I guess I am just frustrated to see what the reason for still being there is. We pulled out of Vietnam when it was going nowhere. Why not do the same here.

And all of this is coming from an outspoken republican. Forget party affiliations here. Party allegiance is no reason for innocent people to die. Period.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
The amazing thing is how little the 15 billion dollars is accomplishing. This summer the electrical grid of Iraq almost collapsed, and the water system with it. This is our progress after four years.

Partition the country, get UN peacekeeping to keep them from committing genocide upon one another just like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, direct our money to building them some decent infrastructure and getting all the NGO's we can in there, and get the hell out of there. Like Brandon said, our money's better used elsewhere. If we don't go for a political solution or outright declare victory and leave, we're going to be here when kids of my generation run the United States.
 

mkultra

Registered Member
well its making the Bush mafia's cronies super rich and thats really all that matters to this outlaw admin.
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
Who, exactly, are "Bush's mafia cronies" (changed for grammar). And how exactly is Bush an outlaw?
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
Mkultra, substantiate what you're saying; otherwise you're just a bigot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

PrinceOfSpace

Registered Member
Honestly, it does not matter why we went in. It matters that we did go in. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden all either voted for H.J.Res. 114 (Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq) or publicly supported it. Some gave very strong speeches supporting the war (H. Clinton and Kerry).

Obama and Richardson say they would have voted no but that is pretty easy to say looking back now. Guess who was in Congress and voted no. Ron Paul. Unlike most of the Democrats who now say they regret their vote, Paul had the foresight to know that we should be following the Constitution and not going around enforcing UN resolutions. Consistency counts as far as I am concerned. He opposed Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. His position is simple: when you go to war you must declare war. He quotes some document called the Constitution:

"[The Congress shall have power] to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" (Article I, Section VIII)

There is a reason Congress is enumerated in Article I and the President is in Article II. Congress makes the laws and the Executive executes those decisions. The ability to declare war is not an implied power, it is very clear who has that power.

We can no longer afford two-faced politicians who campaign on one thing and do another. George. W. Bush was very clear and very specific in 2000 on the idea of nation-building:

"[Somalia] Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."

"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

George W. Bush
10/11/2000

When George H. W. Bush wanted to liberate Kuwait in 1990 most Democrats voted against H.J.Res. 77. A few years later Republicans opposed Bill Clinton in Kosovo and other military interventions (bombing Sudan and Afghanistan). We cannot afford this voting across party lines based mostly on who is President.

Ron Paul is consistent. He is the only candidate wanting to take power and money away from the federal government. I would hope everyone at least looks him up and sees what he has to say.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
It matters that we did go in. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden all either voted for H.J.Res. 114 (Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq) or publicly supported it
So? The past doesn't mean anything, it's a present problem. Biden has a damn good political solution, and Edwards just declared that if elected he's going to withdraw the troops in ten months.
He opposed Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. His position is simple: when you go to war you must declare war.
If you're going to war to bring a country into compliance with UN resolutions, it can be legitimately considered a police action.
 

mkultra

Registered Member
Who, exactly, are "Bush's mafia cronies" (changed for grammar). And how exactly is Bush an outlaw?
all the war profiteers Bush bases his entire foreign policy on enriching (like Halliburton, Blackwater etc) and Bush is an outlaw in the sense that there isnt any law on the books Bush didnt break
------
Mkultra, substantiate what you're saying; otherwise you're just a bigot.
read the news to substantiate it yourself
 
Last edited:
Top