Obamas Military advisor...100 years in Iraq

Superfreak said:
Um... the cost of healthcare goes up and the dollar drops and the debt for medicare drives the dollar down, a viscious cycle there.

Bottom line you can make that argument for everything we spend money on. We have idiotic politicians that call a reduction in an increase in spending a cut. We have idiotic politicians that no matter how good or bad the economy is cannot seem to actually spend less than they take in. 1960 was the last fiscal year our nations debt was reduced.

The war does not make it impossible to address domestic issues. Bottom line is that we are going to have to tighten our belts, quit crying for more government handouts and pay down this debt. Whether the debt comes from the war, medicare, ss, defense, whatever.... we have to tighten our belts. Pulling out would save us money in the short term.... but what about the long term. That is the part you do not seem to be considering.
Click to expand...


Pray tell. What are the long-term costs associated with pulling out of Iraq versus staying in Iraq? I'd like the worst-case and best-case scenarios for both options.

Thanks.
 
Dungheap said:
We have civilian control of the military for a reason. The responsibility of the military brass is not to determine what is in the best interests of this country.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you captain obvious... we do have civilian control. That was designed to prevent the military from running around all willy nilly starting wars etc....

But once we are in a war, the civilian leadership damn well better listen to what the military leaders are suggesting. We saw what happens when the civilian leadership makes the decisions without regard for the military's opinions. We got non-stop Bush fuck ups. Once he let Patreaus actually take command, things began moving in the right direction. (and no... this is not to say things are perfect over there or to suggest that they will be soon)
 
uscitizen said:
Darn party hacks put a wrong war ahead of medical care of our citizens....

That alone makes you warmongers.
Click to expand...

You are a fucking moron. Where did I state that we should put the war ahead of the medical care?

I see that you have decided to become a complete lying hack like Cypress.
 
sheesh....

I could resort to talk of mental capabilites or something about now but I just shake my head and go on.
 
Dungheap said:
Pray tell. What are the long-term costs associated with pulling out of Iraq versus staying in Iraq? I'd like the worst-case and best-case scenarios for both options.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Staying in.... if we use the highest estimate I have seen thus far... we get to $3 trillion over the next ten years. CBO has it at $2.4 trillion. Bush thinks it will be a dollar.

Pulling out.... that is what they have to assess. bottom line, I do not have any numbers as I haven't seen what they think the most likely outcome would be.... so they must....

1) Determine the likely outcomes of our leaving now without a solid unity government and without an Iraqi army capable of maintaining peace.

a) Will someone rise to power and essentially become a new Saddam? If so, costs would be minimal if balance were restored between Iraq and Iran.

b) Would Iraq and Iran attempt to merge? If so, the costs would be high as Saudi, the Iraqi Sunnis and the Kurds would not want that to occur. This would likely drive the entire middle east into the war. Obviously this would cause oil prices to skyrocket (even more so than they have) and the high oil would crush our economy further.

2) Once they have the worst case scenario, an economic impact analysis would be done to calculate the range the impact would have on our economy.
 
uscitizen said:
Staying there does not guarantee that item 3 will not happen either.
Click to expand...

Correct. Which is why they don't just assess the situation once. Right now they believe they can turn the tide. With the recent troubles with Sadr, they may reassess that. Which is why I will trust our military leaders to make that call.
 
I do not trust our military leaders to make that call. They do not have that outstanding of a track record over the last 50 years or so on that. They have their own focus and it is not on how the USA is doing internally.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc...

I view it as they have blown this war at this point, and why keep on dragging it out ?
 
uscitizen said:
I do not trust our military leaders to make that call. They do not have that outstanding of a track record over the last 50 years or so on that. They have their own focus and it is not on how the USA is doing internally.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc...

I view it as they have blown this war at this point, and why keep on dragging it out ?
Click to expand...

Was it our military leaders that screwed the pooch in Korea and Viet Nam or was it the political interference? (seriously just looking for your opinion on this)

As for Iraq, I think it was a huge cluster fuck created by Bush. The total lack of preperation, the lack of an exit strategy, the disbanding of the Iraqi army.... I find it hard to believe that was all due to the military leaders. I could be wrong.

As for the military's focus... in my opinion it should absolutely be focused on the task at hand... it should not be making decisions based on the US economy.
 
uscitizen said:
sheesh....

I could resort to talk of mental capabilites or something about now but I just shake my head and go on.
Click to expand...


Iraq is a vanity war for Bush voters at this point. An ego war.

Just like with global warming, Bush tax cuts, Bushonomics, they can't bring themselves to say they were wrong. Its an ego thing for them. And they'd rather see american soldiers die, than see the republican party admit it made one of the most tragic and calamitous foreign policy decisions in american history.

e.g., the Iraq war was "ineveitable". I never said global warming wasn't happening, just that humans don't cause it!

The list of excuses and tap dances goes on
 
Cypress said:
Iraq is a vanity war for Bush voters at this point. An ego war.

Just like with global warming, Bush tax cuts, Bushonomics, they can't bring themselves to say they were wrong. Its an ego thing for them. And they'd rather see american soldiers die, than see the republican party admit it made one of the most tragic and calamitous foreign policy decisions in american history.

e.g., the Iraq war was "ineveitable". I never said global warming wasn't happening, just that humans don't cause it!

The list of excuses and tap dances goes on
Click to expand...

What was wrong with the tax cuts?

Edit: "Bushanomics" doesn't work if you are referring to things such as steel tariffs, excessive spending such as the pill bill and farm subsidies among other things.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Was it our military leaders that screwed the pooch in Korea and Viet Nam or was it the political interference? (seriously just looking for your opinion on this)

As for Iraq, I think it was a huge cluster fuck created by Bush. The total lack of preperation, the lack of an exit strategy, the disbanding of the Iraqi army.... I find it hard to believe that was all due to the military leaders. I could be wrong.

As for the military's focus... in my opinion it should absolutely be focused on the task at hand... it should not be making decisions based on the US economy.
Click to expand...

Well it is always politics and or corporate interests that got us into those wars.

US Rubber for Vietnam.
I am not really sure on Korea, fear of communism I suppose. and politicians showing they are tough against it ?
Oil for Iraq.

Vietnam, it took a political lead to get us out and now we trade with them.
North Korea, still an axis of evil ;)
Iraq, an endless middle east quagmire if left up to the military.
 
Repubs arent' all that bad. Reagan won the Cold War. Bush Sr. won the 1st Gulf-war and I was very proud to serve under them. Bill Clinton benefited from the "Peace Dividend" created by Republican Economic and Foreign Policies. I did serve under him as well and he had success in the Balkins (Bosnia and Kosovo) and Haiti. He deseves credit for stewarding a strong economy until the day he left office. I doubt that the next President will receive much benefit from G.W. Bush's lack of any coherent policy (any policy). The only benefit the next President will have, is that almost anything he or she does, is likely to improve on the status-quo (the bar of succes is now lower).
 
Just1Joe said:
Repubs arent' all that bad. Reagan won the Cold War. Bush Sr. won the 1st Gulf-war and I was very proud to serve under them. Bill Clinton benefited from the "Peace Dividend" created by Republican Economic and Foreign Policies. I did serve under him as well and he had success in the Balkins (Bosnia and Kosovo) and Haiti. He deseves credit for stewarding a strong economy until the day he left office. I doubt that the next President will receive much benefit from G.W. Bush's lack of any coherent policy (any policy). The only benefit the next President will have, is that almost anything he or she does, is likely to improve on the status-quo (the bar of succes is now lower).
Click to expand...

Just1Joe, you bring reality to this board. Most other folk like internet heaven.
 
I lean Republican, but if we had a "strong middle of the road" 3rd Party, I'd probably jump on board. For now, all you can do is look at the candidates on both sides, and try to pick the lessor of two evils. I'm not extremely happy with my choices, but I'll vote for McCain. If Obama or Hillary become President, I'll hope that they are up to the task and successful. What else can you do? I'm not about to give up on America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top