The Not So Secret Cost Of The Wars In Iraq and Afghanistan..

[Billo_Really]

The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.
You should be thankful your fathers, sons and brothers died for their profits.

I think I'd feel a lot better if they had died for a higher corporate tax rate.

 

[Billo_Really]

Two more US protectorates.

That's an interesting way to put it.

 

[rdean]

Used to be before 2000 the U S Military didn't even keep track of it's members in uniform that took thier own lives. I find THAT unconscionable.

Now the suicides outpace the combat deaths.. THIS is the dirty BIG secret of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Through November, 177 active-duty soldiers had committed suicide compared to 165 during all of 2011 and 156 in 2010. In all of 2012, 176 soldiers were killed in action -- all while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, according to DOD."


The enemy within: Soldier suicides outpaced combat deaths in 2012 - U.S. News

That's not even counting the trillions it will cost to take care of tens of thousands of Americans maimed in Iraq. Republicans will try to blame that on Obama. It's how they operate. Create a disaster. Blame your enemy for the bill.

 

[Andylusion]

Well.... honestly, this right here could be part of the reason.

You are wrong about that.

You don't even know what we have accomplished, and how good of a thing it was.

For you to claim that those people went there and sacrificed for nothing, yeah... that's sad. That might depress some people in the military.

Then you tell me, "what did we get in return?"

What did we get for over $4 trillion dollars, over 4000 American lives, our reputation trashed, our economy crashed and our American heritage completely shit on, what did we get for giving up all that?

How has average American's benefited from such a sacrifice? How is "my" life better because of that?

Care to answer that question, Andy?

Saddam had been screwing with us since 1992. Saddam had been trying to create a working relationship with terrorist groups for 10 years. Saddam DID have WMDs. There's no question about it. The only question we have is, where did they go.

I find it odd that no one has asked where Syria got WMDs suddenly.

Further, Afghanistan was a hot bed of terrorist support groups, and training camps, and a money funnel for international terrorism world wide.

You should read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

Now I'm not suggesting that we executed actions perfectly. Obviously not. Nor am I suggesting that we didn't in some ways, setup our own problems. We most certainly did, back in the late 80s, and into the 90s.

But, the fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan were massive problems, and we did the right thing going in there.

For your consideration........

Inside the Ring: Syria, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Washington Times

The U.S.-Russia agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons is reigniting a controversy over the 2003 covert operation by Russian special operations forces to remove Iraqi weapons — including chemical arms — and move them to Syria and Lebanon prior to the Iraq War.

John A. Shaw, a former Pentagon official who first disclosed the Iraqi-Russian collaboration to The Washington Times, said the agreement brokered by Moscow could resolve unanswered questions about the arms transfers.

“The Russians were the principal — if not the sole — supplier of chemical weapons to both Iraq and Syria,” said Mr. Shaw, a former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security who tracked Iraqi weapons for the Pentagon.

Mr. Shaw noted that U.N. inspectors who surveyed the site of the Aug. 21 Syrian chemical weapons attack near Damascus found an intact rocket motor inscribed with Cyrillic writing, indicating the delivery system was Russian in origin.

Mr. Shaw said Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons — about 1,000 tons of nerve and blister agents — is estimated to be 50 percent larger than it was in 2003.

Remember all that BS the leftards spewed about Bush 'rushing to war', when in fact he waited a year plus before invading?

If we had rushed into Iraq, we would have found those WMDs.

I'm convinced the prior reason Obama doesn't want to help out in Syria, is because we'll find those WMDs, and trace them back to Iraq, and that will doom the Democraps while justifying Bush.

 

[Flopper]

Two more US protectorates.

That's an interesting way to put it.

The STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (SFA) pretty well guarantees that US will protect Iraq for decades. The Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement will do same thing with Afghanistan.

After spending trillions of dollars on the wars, sacrificing thousands of US lives and hundreds of thousands of civilians and enemy combatants, we have to rebuild these countries, and stand behind the corrupt governments that ensue.

 

[Mushroom]

Remember all that BS the leftards spewed about Bush 'rushing to war', when in fact he waited a year plus before invading?

If we had rushed into Iraq, we would have found those WMDs.

I'm convinced the prior reason Obama doesn't want to help out in Syria, is because we'll find those WMDs, and trace them back to Iraq, and that will doom the Democraps while justifying Bush.

Actually, I thought the US President laid out very well the reasons for attacking Iraq.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

 

[Andylusion]

Remember all that BS the leftards spewed about Bush 'rushing to war', when in fact he waited a year plus before invading?

If we had rushed into Iraq, we would have found those WMDs.

I'm convinced the prior reason Obama doesn't want to help out in Syria, is because we'll find those WMDs, and trace them back to Iraq, and that will doom the Democraps while justifying Bush.

Actually, I thought the US President laid out very well the reasons for attacking Iraq.

Yeah, he did. Absolutely he did.

But the big thing for the leftards, was that we didn't get the WMDs. And that's exactly why Obama and his every moving 'red line', and ultimately avoidance of Syria, is going to avoid going there as much as possible. The moment we go into Syria, we'll find out where those WMDs came from.... Iraq.

Then the Democrats and Leftards will be screwed over when the people find out who really lied, was the left.

Instead, we'll let Syria have decades of civil war, and come up with every excuse in the book to never go there.

 

[Mushroom]

Yeah, he did. Absolutely he did.

But the big thing for the leftards, was that we didn't get the WMDs. And that's exactly why Obama and his every moving 'red line', and ultimately avoidance of Syria, is going to avoid going there as much as possible. The moment we go into Syria, we'll find out where those WMDs came from.... Iraq.

Then the Democrats and Leftards will be screwed over when the people find out who really lied, was the left.

Instead, we'll let Syria have decades of civil war, and come up with every excuse in the book to never go there.

Actually, that is one of my favorite Presidential Speeches about the tail end of the Saddam Hussein reign.

However, if you notice I did not say what President it was that gave that speech.

That was the speech given by President Clinton in December 1998, at the start of Operation Desert Fox.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

I really do not care about politics. And while I questioned the timing of that strike, I never questioned the need for it to be done. But the political Democrats cheered and applauded, saying the President was right.

A few years later, different administration, and all of those justifications are suddenly lies. And FYI, I castigate the Republicans that blasted President Clinton for the strike in the same way. In my mind, politics does not apply, just the need for the action, regardless of who is warming the chair in the Oval Office at the time.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, he did. Absolutely he did.

But the big thing for the leftards, was that we didn't get the WMDs. And that's exactly why Obama and his every moving 'red line', and ultimately avoidance of Syria, is going to avoid going there as much as possible. The moment we go into Syria, we'll find out where those WMDs came from.... Iraq.

Then the Democrats and Leftards will be screwed over when the people find out who really lied, was the left.

Instead, we'll let Syria have decades of civil war, and come up with every excuse in the book to never go there.

Actually, that is one of my favorite Presidential Speeches about the tail end of the Saddam Hussein reign.

However, if you notice I did not say what President it was that gave that speech.

That was the speech given by President Clinton in December 1998, at the start of Operation Desert Fox.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

I really do not care about politics. And while I questioned the timing of that strike, I never questioned the need for it to be done. But the political Democrats cheered and applauded, saying the President was right.

A few years later, different administration, and all of those justifications are suddenly lies. And FYI, I castigate the Republicans that blasted President Clinton for the strike in the same way. In my mind, politics does not apply, just the need for the action, regardless of who is warming the chair in the Oval Office at the time.

LOL Perfect! I was going to say, I didn't remember that one. But yes, the original pro-Iraq-war president, was in fact Bill Clinton.

Nice post!

 

[Moonglow]

If Bush sr. had taken the military axion into Baghdad, a further war would have been unnecessary.

 

[Mushroom]

If Bush sr. had taken the military axion into Baghdad, a further war would have been unnecessary.

That was not in the UN Mandate, and it was not the mission. In 1991 the mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, and prevent them from starting any more wars of aggression.

And we were not prepared to do that anyways. The US could have pushed maybe 100 miles further into Iraq, but not much more. We simply lacked the capabilities at that moment to do much more without a time period to regroup and resupply.

Please stick to facts and not moonbeams, eh? Or are you so obsessed with attacking that you will do it no matter how silly it is?

 

[rdean]

If Bush sr. had taken the military axion into Baghdad, a further war would have been unnecessary.

No, we would have spent the trillions much earlier, that's all.

 

[rdean]

It's so easy for the right wing to ignore the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded warriors costing somewhere in the trillions years into the future. Once it all dies down, they will attempt to cut benefits for these people and try to leave them homeless. It's what right wingers do.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Mushroom]

It's so easy for the right wing to ignore the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded warriors costing somewhere in the trillions years into the future. Once it all dies down, they will attempt to cut benefits for these people and try to leave them homeless. It's what right wingers do.

All I can say is "Wow, somebody does not have a clue."

Why is it that so many Liberals only care about those in uniform when they can make a victim out of them? Or when it costs them money?

BTW, it was not a Republican that proposed to kick disabled veterans out of the VA and to make them use private insurance for their service connected disabilities.

 

[Mushroom]

Come on now, you can't debate on facts so resort to this kind of nonsense?

WTF kind of references are those? Esquire magazine, schoolfoodfocus.org and occupy democrats?

Is it even possible to be even less credible? How about an image showing the benefits of pedophilia by NAMBLA?

 

[Andylusion]

As the other poster pointed out, your nifty pict, has crap for sources.

But let's even pretend that it's true.

First, the duty of the Federal Government is to provide for national defense. If you go look at the history of our constitution, the whole reason we ditched the articles of confederation, in favor of the constitution, was so we could have a national defense.

Second, providing school lunch, violates the general welfare clause. The General Welfare clause says that the Federal Government should only be spending money on things that provide the General Welfare. Not punishing one group with taxes, to provide another group with a meal ticket on the government dime.

Gov-Lunch doesn't benefit me. It taxes me, to benefit others. Who paid for my lunch when I was in school? My parents, and myself when I started working. (yes I worked in school... you know, what responsible people do).

Not government.

So given the option of buying tanks, or buying school lunch, I'd rather they buy tanks.

 

[Moonglow]

If Bush sr. had taken the military axion into Baghdad, a further war would have been unnecessary.

That was not in the UN Mandate, and it was not the mission. In 1991 the mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, and prevent them from starting any more wars of aggression.

And we were not prepared to do that anyways. The US could have pushed maybe 100 miles further into Iraq, but not much more. We simply lacked the capabilities at that moment to do much more without a time period to regroup and resupply.

Please stick to facts and not moonbeams, eh? Or are you so obsessed with attacking that you will do it no matter how silly it is?

I attacked no one, you did..

 

[rdean]

It's so easy for the right wing to ignore the cost of taking care of tens of thousands of wounded warriors costing somewhere in the trillions years into the future. Once it all dies down, they will attempt to cut benefits for these people and try to leave them homeless. It's what right wingers do.

All I can say is "Wow, somebody does not have a clue."

Why is it that so many Liberals only care about those in uniform when they can make a victim out of them? Or when it costs them money?

BTW, it was not a Republican that proposed to kick disabled veterans out of the VA and to make them use private insurance for their service connected disabilities.

GOP SenatorTom Coburn?

Tom Coburn Named as Senator Holding up Veterans Bill | Veterans Today