Cost of war so far 80 billion, plus 87 billion just granted, plus an additional amount sought!! causalities in the hundreds for our soldiers. Wounded? who counts? Oct 17th Today 4 American Soldiers Are Killed and their lives are worth $6,000 that the govt pays the families of fallen soldiers. Cheap cost for the trillions of oil. FORT STEWART, Ga., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day. "I have loved the Army. I have served the Army faithfully and I have done everything the Army has asked me to do," said Sgt. 1st Class Willie Buckels, a truck master with the 296th Transportation Company. Buckels served in the Army Reserves for 27 years, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and the first Gulf War. "Now my whole idea about the U.S. Army has changed. I am treated like a third-class citizen." Oct. 16 â A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unitâs morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist. THE SURVEY, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training. The findings, drawn from 1,935 questionnaires presented to U.S. service members throughout Iraq, conflict with statements by military commanders and Bush administration officials that portray the deployed troops as high-spirited and generally well-prepared. Though not obtained through scientific methods, the survey results suggest that a combination of difficult conditions, complex missions and prolonged tours in Iraq is wearing down a significant portion of the U.S. force and threatening to provoke a sizable exodus from military service. http://www.msnbc.com/news/980954.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1
£3bn Iraq rebuilding cash 'goes missing' BILL JACOBS WESTMINSTER EDITOR A NEW Iraq scandal erupted today as a report claimed billions of dollars earmarked for rebuilding the country have vanished after being handed to the United States-controlled governing body in Baghdad. At least $5 billion (£3bn) has been passed to the ruling Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), a leading UK aid agency has calculated. But only a fifth of those development funds have been accounted for, figures unearthed by Christian Aid show. And that missing four billion dollar "black hole" will double by the end of the year unless the CPAâs accounts are made public. The allegations emerged as British aid agencies claimed millions of pounds of government aid cash will have to be diverted from poor countries in South America, Eastern and Central Asia to rebuilding Iraq. And they threaten to undermine a conference in Spain, where the United Nations and World Bank hopes to raise £20 billion to pay for the reconstruction of the country following the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister Tony Blair was today challenged by the charities to account for the missing $5bn, mainly from oil revenue, as donors conference involving 60 countries got under way in Madrid. A spokesman for the CPA denied that the money had been lost or misused and promised that all the cash would be fully accounted for. The Mr Blair and US President George Bush last week won a new UN resolution calling for international contributions of money and troops.The donations will go into a new fund overseen by the UN and the World Bank. But failure to show where the existing cash has gone will fuel suspicion among Iraqis that large amounts are being creamed off by US firms given contracts to rebuild the country, Christian Aid said. One senior European diplomat told the charity: "We have absolutely no idea how the money has been spent. "I wish I knew, but we just donât know. We have absolutely no idea." Roger Riddell, Christian Aidâs international director, called the situation "little short of scandalous". He said: "The British Government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future. "This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the countryâs people - particularly the poorest." The UN transferred $1 billion from its old Oil for Food Programme to the new Development Fund For Iraq earlier this year. The same UN resolution was supposed to set up an International Advisory and Monitoring Board to oversee the accounts. It has not materialised and the only funds accounted for so far are one billion dollars spent by the Programme Review Board. However, the CPA has received $2.5bn in assets seized from Saddam Husseinâs regime in Iraq and abroad, Christian Aid reveals. And it calculates oil revenue has contributed at least another $1.5bn since the war. Officials in Madrid admit that the latest allegations will make it even more difficult to raise the £20bn needed to rebuild Iraq and fuel potential donor countriesâ suspicions that the main beneficiaries of the reconstruction programme are big US firms. They expect little more that £3 billion to be raised. And further concerns have been voiced over the news that the UK is reducing overseas aid to South American, Eastern European and central Asian countries because of the cost of rebuilding Iraq. A group of UK overseas aid charities said at least £100 million would have to be diverted to help pay for Britainâs commitment to provide £267 million over the next two years to deal with the aftermath of the Gulf War. International Development Secretary Hillary Benn admitted the shift in resources today but said that Iraq now qualified as a low income country. http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1169292003
Cost of war so far over 161 billion to the US taxpayer. Hundreds of our own dead. But lest not forget the Iraqi dead either. Death toll Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and 55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died as a direct result of the war. It says that mines and unexploded bombs continue to kill and maim. The report says that the conflict and its aftermath have put the most vulnerable in society - women, children and the elderly - at risk. A quarter of a million children were not vaccinated against measles once the conflict started. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3259489.stm tens of thousands of them. Enemies? How many new terrorists have we created?
So your point is what exactly? That the Iraqi's would have been better with Saddam still in power? That we would be safer with him in place? If you look back you will see that I was not a cheerleader for starting this war. I was somewhat concerned, but I had been about the first Gulf War as well. I do think there was a reasonable case made for going in, although I also think reasonable people could differ about it. Now we are there, we have to deal with it, and all this naysaying doesn't help anyone. How about some positive suggestions?
Only keeping track of $$$ and souls lost. If you you see no point, then no point to reply. If you want we can start another thread and discuss if U.S. "was unsafe" with Sadam in power and how, and how high on our hit list should Iraq have been. We could also discuss what needs to be done now and we have learned anything for future reference. By no means I'm trying to make a point against you in this thread. We had our bickering with you and many others many times before. Frankly it was getting old and tiring. All in good fun though.
As a member of a free nation I feel it is my duty to express my opinion and views in this thread. On going to war with Iraq: I truly think that the majority of the US population has had it so easy for so long that they are out of touch with reality. It is my opinion that some people are enamoured with the idea any sitution can be resolved without violence (war). These are the same people who are against owning firearms, feel strongly about the rights of convicted criminals (murderers, rapist, etc). These people readily shift the blame and consequences to others or to society as a whole. They are also the champions of mediocrity and are against having a highly competitive environment where the winners get ahead and the losers stay behind. They are the first to cry foul and threaten with lawsuits for being "offended". There are many other traits to this group that are contributing to the down fall of the US. How does this relate to war? Members of this group probably feel that anyone can be reasoned with. How wrong can they be. No matter how advanced our society becomes, there will always be a group of people who know no reason. For this group the only way you can deal with them is through violence, ie. Saddam in Iraq. As an American I am glad to see a president that is not afraid to deal with the despots of the world. As for American deaths in Iraq, I am truly sorry for that. I have the utmost respect for the American soldiers serving our country. Without them and the sacrifices of those before them what kind of world would we live in? I have several close family friends serving in Iraq, my brother is stationed overseas, my father and gandfather served this country when needed. I give thanks to them and all service men and women who have allowed me and you to sit in our comfortable and safe country where freedom still remains and enjoy a lifestyle beyond comprehension for most of the citizens of Iraq. On Iraq and oil: Oil makes the world go around. Without a stable supply of oil our economy and that of the world would stumble and collapse into a depression far greater than you or I would want to witness. Unfortuntely much of the worlds oil reserves are in the middle east. Not the safest most stable place in the world. By palcing a legitimate democracy in Iraq, America is attempting to secure a stable world economy for generations to come. By removing the Despots that rule in the Middle East the wealth of those nations will be spread out amongst the general population instead of a few in the favor of the Despot rulers. Therby creating a stable supply of oil for the world, not just the US. For those of you who do not agree with ensuring a stable supply of oil, everytime you fill up your car, donate $10 for every gallon of gas you buy to a charity. While your at it, everytime you buy someting (milk, stereo, food, clothes) donate double the purchase value to a charity. This should cover increased gas prices and transporation costs due to a shortage of oil from a mideast war due to instability. Life would get pretty expensive real fast. On Iraqi reconstruction: So what if American companies are given exclusive rights to construction projects in Iraq. America is footing the bill for the war, we won the war. Would you rather see a French or German company doing the work. Not I. Bottom line, to the victor goes the spoils. On Bringing our troops home and exiting Iraq: That is why we are here in the first place. The job was not done right back in 1991. If business was taken care of then we wouldn't be in this mess now. Besides that, if we pull out now we make the situation much worse. Global opinion turns even worse because we left Iraq in a state of dissarray after invading, With no stable government we end up worse of than we were with Saddam, our troops lives will be for nothing, money spent would be thrown down the drain, the message would be out that America does not have the courage and strength to follow through, it would be open season for the terrorist states and the US would be the hunted. Most importantly, we would have to do this again in 10-20 years or sooner. The bottom line: President Bush and his allies did what had to be done. I just hope that The US does the right thing and finishes what was started.
Tell me this: What has been done by Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc. to make us more independent from the grip of foreign oil? Yes, oil makes the world go round, but it is the oil companies, the auto companies and their powerful lobbies and inside connections who keep us entrenched in the use of oil. How much of our budget is earmarked on developing alternative fuels and greater fuel efficiency? Had we take the proper steps in the 70's when our unhealthy dependence on Middle Eastern oil became so clear, we would not have to look at Iraq any differently than we would a poor country in South America, and we might very well not be at war with them right now.
An Italian -French company announced solar panel technology that will reduce the cost per watt by 90% from existing stuff, could go a long way towards getting us off of oil. I calculated that an installation to power my household would hit breakeven in 3 years. Strict environmentalists won't be for this, because they are against all energy, but a lot of them will lighten up a little and basically this technology should not see any real opposition once it comes to the market. Nuclear power was our best option to get off of oil dependency but environmentalists have succeeded in blocking any and all permits to build for several decades.
Look, I am in agreement that the cost in both money and people is outrageous. I voiced my concern early on in the occupation that we were not doing enough to take charge of the situation. Unfortunately my concerns have proved out. I believe our first priority should have been the safety of our troops, not trying to win friends and convince the Iraqi's that we loved them. They construe restraint as weakness and move to take advantage. Perhaps we underestimated the effects of living under saddam for so long. For whatever reason, enough of them want to cause trouble that we cannot secure the place using current policies. I am also aghast at the cost indollars, and particularly at the notion that it is soemhow the responsibility of the US taxpayer to turn over a brand new country to whatever Iraqi thugs end up in control. I think it would have been more reasonable to take a cut of their oil revenues to pay for our costs of freeing them from Saddam. As sick as the above make me, I can't advocate a cut and run policy. The situation there now is chaotic and pulling out prematurely will only create another Lebanon or Somalia, only on a larger scale. The ultimate solution may lie in partitioning the country into three sections. Since most of the violence is in the "sunni triangle" area, it makes sense to me to take a very hard line there. One solution would be to relocate most of the residents to refugee camps. That would deprive them of access to weapons, and make it easier to search the area and remove hidden weapons.
Look at what W has done in office so far in 3 years: A very muddled economy. A few million jobs lost. A trillion dollars in annual fiscal and trade deficits. An ill conceived war in Iraq that is costing American lives seemingly everyday. How in the world does this guy expect to get re-elected with this kind of record? Has he done anything remotely positive for this country besides his solid leadership after 9/11 for a few months? American schools are a joke. Look at how many kids are proficient in math or reading in the District of Columbia. It's abysmal, its in the single digits. Not to mention nationwide things are bad. Has W done anything positive regarding healthcare? All he seems to be able to do is to send soldiers in harms way to help Halliburton and his oil buddy cronies. We need massive investments in alternative energy. Tens of billions of dollars a year IMO at least. Stand up to the Detroit lobby, stand up to the oil companies and end our dependence on middle east oil. Do we really need to lose US troops everyday so we can drive around in Hummers and Escalades? Of course not. We were driving gas guzzlers 30 years ago and we are still driving gas guzzlers. Speaking of the cost of war in Iraq: we are spending, what, $87 billion over there? What if we spent $87 billion over here to: Improve heathcare Secure our open borders Clean up the environment Invest in alternative energy! Modernize our schools The list goes on.