Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems the sticking point is a timetable for withdrawal, since we were told major combat operations ended almost 5 years ago it seems it must be a mopping up operation we've been involved in for that period. Why shouldn't there be a scheduled withdrawal?
It's a poor Commander who puts his troops in a position where he can't support them and must search out someone else to blame.
I'm one of those people who do not believe in a scheduled withdrawal, I believe that we went into this war to win, we need to finish it, for various reasons that are unrelated to the topic "paying for the war".
That being said, my biggest complaint is the left pointing fingers at the right with attitudes of, they started it.. make them pay for it, when in reality they all started it, whoever is in charge needs to figure out how to pay for it, and we as citizens, who will be the ones who end up paying for it in the end, need to be demanding of whoever is writing the check to come up with a plan, and simply not pass the debt, and the blame onto future administrations.
Its so convenient to ignore the fact that 100% of congress supported changing the regime of Iraq under Clintons administration, in addition to spending over $100 Million to do so, and then when that failed, and we voted in Bus, a huge percentage on both sides of the political spectrum of Congress supported the action, and now are trying to back peddle simply out of convenience.
The reason people want to ignore this fact is simply because no one has a plan to pay for it. The fact is we cant pay for this and still add on additional spending with new programs.
Until people start to do something to give the powers that be the tools that they need to do the job, stop requesting so much from the government, actually bite the bullet by paying higher taxes (provided it goes to pay down debt), dramtically cut spending, the problems will continue to compile just like the interest that we will pass onto our children to pay.
Seize all of Halliburton's assets and sell them off.
Windfall oil taxes.
Windfall taxes on Blackwater and defense contractors, the corporations and their profits and then threaten additional taxes if they pass it of onto workers or consumers.
Wow.. you put a lot of thought into that, please provide me some actual figures as to how companies are supposed to "Windfall" taxes, and then not pass it onto a consumer..
Were you just waiting for some minor point to insert your silly link?
If we had one less senator in the senate, we would not hold the majority. Seems pretty slim to me.
Republican led congress got tons done under Clinton with a small majority.. Point?
Personally believe that the Democrats leading the Democratic party right now are incompetent. Now should be the time that they should be full steam ahead, writing bill after bill after bill, showing the american public what they can do. Blaming the other side is not a valid excuse because all administrations have to deal with problems..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm one of those people who do not believe in a scheduled withdrawal, I believe that we went into this war to win, we need to finish it, for various reasons that are unrelated to the topic "paying for the war".
And exactly what is it you think we're going to win?
If major combat operations have been over for 4 1/2 years what is it you think we're still fighting for? Sounds like in the CinC's view the war's been won, why should there not be a schedule for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country? It's time they bear their own burden.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those slackers go on vacation while Americans stand in harm's way? If vacation is more important to them than getting their own country in order then screw 'em, let them fend for themselves.
And exactly what is it you think we're going to win?
If major combat operations have been over for 4 1/2 years what is it you think we're still fighting for? Sounds like in the CinC's view the war's been won, why should there not be a schedule for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country? It's time they bear their own burden.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those slackers go on vacation while Americans stand in harm's way? If vacation is more important to them than getting their own country in order then screw 'em, let them fend for themselves.
If you can write it in a thread you can explain, clarify, and defend it in the same thread
Well I've been seeing to many posts of... Thats off topic lately....
As to what there is to win, personally, I believe we already won. We invaded, we took over, we conquored, heck, the president was hung.. If we havent "won" then what have we done.
As for the reason for staying, I think its imperiative for us to stay in order to stabalize the area. We caused the dis-stabilization of the area, its our job to make sure that when we leave for several reasons such as.
1) First, the number of casualties is not so great that the US as a whole to be injured. I dont buy the, "3000 + dead oh my" argument. We have lost hundreds of thousands in other wars, and while surely no one wants to see another amiercan die in a war, we also do not want those that did die to be in vain, and we dont even want to begin to discuss the numbers that would die if we have to go back in after a retreat. Granted, family members have sacrificed greatly, but thats the case with all wars.
2) We need to keep the area of the world stablized for our economic foundation to stay stable. If we were to leave and international war in the area was to break out, the worlds economy would be in huge uproar. You think we have a housing crisis now.
3) If war was to break out there because we left, what would be the cost to go back in? I would assume it would be even greater then what we've spent to date because we would be fighting other countries, and primarily starting from scratch
4) America is not a country that cuts and runs from our problems. We started the war, we need to let countries know that we resolve what we started. What signal would we send to the world community if we would simply get up and run? Some would not care, but what happens next time we need international support to join in on other actions?
Among other reasons, of course none of these explain how we're going to pay for the war because I dont have the answer, but then I'm not in Congress and have not been elected to help solve our problems.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Well I've been seeing to many posts of... Thats off topic lately....
As to what there is to win, personally, I believe we already won. We invaded, we took over, we conquored, heck, the president was hung.. If we havent "won" then what have we done.
As for the reason for staying, I think its imperiative for us to stay in order to stabalize the area. We caused the dis-stabilization of the area, its our job to make sure that when we leave for several reasons such as.
Fair enough but I don't think that region's been stable for centuries, I don't think it'll change because we say it should. I agreed we should fix what we broke until they displayed their unwillingness to help themselves, that's why I believe they need the pressure of a timetable to get them off their butts. If you continually carry your kids they'll never learn to walk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
1) First, the number of casualties is not so great that the US as a whole to be injured. I dont buy the, "3000 + dead oh my" argument. We have lost hundreds of thousands in other wars, and while surely no one wants to see another amiercan die in a war, we also do not want those that did die to be in vain, and we dont even want to begin to discuss the numbers that would die if we have to go back in after a retreat. Granted, family members have sacrificed greatly, but thats the case with all wars.
In other wars we were attacked and were defending ourselves, this is not the case here. I don't think there's some 'magic number' of casualties that defines a war as worthwhile or not, depending on the circumstances one may be too many. This was a war of choice and I think it was the wrong choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
2) We need to keep the area of the world stablized for our economic foundation to stay stable. If we were to leave and international war in the area was to break out, the worlds economy would be in huge uproar. You think we have a housing crisis now.
The housing crisis is irrelevant here and I see no great economic benefit coming from this war.. if you insist on economic terms look at likely ROI and it looks poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
3) If war was to break out there because we left, what would be the cost to go back in? I would assume it would be even greater then what we've spent to date because we would be fighting other countries, and primarily starting from scratch
A war between? I think it's time we decline to be the world police. If the people of the region are unwilling to work out their own piece I say sell them ehatever weapons they want for gold, oil, hard currency, stand back and let the do their stupidity without our involvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
4) America is not a country that cuts and runs from our problems. We started the war, we need to let countries know that we resolve what we started. What signal would we send to the world community if we would simply get up and run? Some would not care, but what happens next time we need international support to join in on other actions?
Due to the tribal and religious differences in that region I don't believe there's likely to ever be lasting peace, at least not of our making. Cut and run is an overused, cheesy sound-bite. Saddam's gone, we've given them an opportunity and they seem too damn lazy to work at it, screw 'em, given a deadline to sink or swim, that's the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Among other reasons, of course none of these explain how we're going to pay for the war because I dont have the answer, but then I'm not in Congress and have not been elected to help solve our problems.
Wow.. you put a lot of thought into that, please provide me some actual figures as to how companies are supposed to "Windfall" taxes, and then not pass it onto a consumer..
I think its pretty easy to see if companies pass on taxes to the consumer....prices go up without expenses (not including the tax) go up.
We as taxpayers fund oil exploration, yet gas prices increase and oil companies profits increase WITH the gas prices.
You really wanna tell me they deserve all that money? (Ten billion a quarter?)
The GOP screw-ups under the Dubya Administration will allow close to a "clean sweep" of electoral victories by Democrat candidates in the 2008 election. This means that the new Democrat-controlled Congress will raise taxes on the rich in order to begin to undo the FISCAL DAMAGE done to this country in the last 8 years.
So the answer to your question is: the GOP citizenry will be paying for the Iraq war, for years to come!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
