Extra $87 Billion for Iraq Occapation.

[Vapour]

I hear that, Bush asked Congress for an additional $87 billion for the war in Iraq.

I'm asking this more for curiousity. I know U.S. government budget is huge but seriously, can American really afford this sort of money for say period of 5 years of more. And when I say afford, I'm not just asking financially but also politically as well as economically.

[Striking Hand]

America is currently in a worrisome spot economically.

They sold a lot of US-Bonds worldwide in order to generte money, Japan has the biggest share.

Financially the USA is not that strong at that the moment and if countries were starting to collect on those US-Bonds it could cripple the US economy.

Personally, I think that the US is over-stretching itself on too many issues which will hurt it in all those 3 areas you mentioned.

[Iain]

If Bush keeps spending like he is, the US will go broke. Simple as that. If the economy gets to the point where the US has to default on its loans and call in all its creditors, it could completely destabilize the global economy and cause catastrophic economic collapse. Have fun.

[JimmyCrow]

Originally posted by Iain
If Bush keeps spending like he is, the US will go broke. Simple as that. If the economy gets to the point where the US has to default on its loans and call in all its creditors, it could completely destabilize the global economy and cause catastrophic economic collapse. Have fun.

Your safe and sound in Canada Iain, why the hell do you care?

[Senjojutsu]

Ah, concerns over the "cost of the Iraqi war".
This crescendo has been building over the past week by the usual chorus of peace queers, Democratic political quislings, and fifth columnists within the national media.

I guess the "no blood for oil" chant has become passé.

A war, occupation, and reconstruction is going to cost money and take time.
Really. I did not know that.
I have been told "The War of Northern Aggression" (1861-1865) was cheap. I thought WWII and the Marshall Plan was on someone else's dime. I thought France paid for the U.S. Vietnam War intervention. The forty plus years of "The Cold War" only cost a few million, right?

Now the trouble with computing "costs" is the propagation of copious statistics; and one must remember what Mark Twain said about them. The first problem is that one billion US dollars in 1944 does not have the same value as one billion in 1968 or one billion in 2003. The second major variable is comparing that dollar impact value's ratio to the overall population and GNP/economic engine at a point of time.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Provides a succinct comparison of major American conflicts - although maybe the whiners should do much more research before harping about costs, but they have an agenda of their own.

You want to talk about human costs?

Vietnam War US Dead, Killed in Action:
 1967 - 11,058 KIA - Average weekly body count of 213
 1968 - 16,511 KIA - Average weekly body count of 318
 1969 - 11,527 KIA - Average weekly body count of 222

Try growing up watching these statistics broadcast every week on television.
Needless to say that does not even take into account the war's wounded or logistical expenses. Of course those same types as I defined above chanted that we were just a bunch of American Imperialists intervening in an internal civil war.

Well guess what Governor Dean, New York Times et al.:
The United States was attacked. We are at war.
The enemy is Islamic Theocratic Fascism.
If we kill our enemy in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan before they launch more attacks it is a good thing.
We have to kill or imprison them because they do not have a traditional country infrastructure to wage war against.

As an aside, I was thinking…
If that Crazy Commie Kim Chong-il of North Korea lobs a few nukes and wipes out Seoul, Kyoto, Anchorage and Vancouver before we retaliate and vaporize Pyongyang and turn the rest of that country into an updated version of Alamogordo, New Mexico how will we calculate those costs?

Of course we could avoid these "costs" by unilateral surrender; that's the French way.

[PwarYuex]

Originally posted by Striking Hand
Personally, I think that the US is over-stretching itself on too many issues which will hurt it in all those 3 areas you mentioned.

I have observed the same thing. It's over extending itself for sure, especially it's military. Is it big-country syndrome?

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Ah, concerns over the "cost of the Iraqi war".
This crescendo has been building over the past week by the usual chorus of peace queers, Democratic political quislings, and fifth columnists within the national media.

I guess the "no blood for oil" chant has become passé.

A war, occupation, and reconstruction is going to cost money and take time.
Really. I did not know that.
I have been told "The War of Northern Aggression" (1861-1865) was cheap. I thought WWII and the Marshall Plan was on someone else's dime. I thought France paid for the U.S. Vietnam War intervention. The forty plus years of "The Cold War" only cost a few million, right?

Now the trouble with computing "costs" is the propagation of copious statistics; and one must remember what Mark Twain said about them. The first problem is that one billion US dollars in 1944 does not have the same value as one billion in 1968 or one billion in 2003. The second major variable is comparing that dollar impact value's ratio to the overall population and GNP/economic engine at a point of time.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Provides a succinct comparison of major American conflicts - although maybe the whiners should do much more research before harping about costs, but they have an agenda of their own.

You want to talk about human costs?

Vietnam War US Dead, Killed in Action:
 1967 - 11,058 KIA - Average weekly body count of 213
 1968 - 16,511 KIA - Average weekly body count of 318
 1969 - 11,527 KIA - Average weekly body count of 222

Try growing up watching these statistics broadcast every week on television.
Needless to say that does not even take into account the war's wounded or logistical expenses. Of course those same types as I defined above chanted that we were just a bunch of American Imperialists intervening in an internal civil war.

Well guess what Governor Dean, New York Times et al.:
The United States was attacked. We are at war.
The enemy is Islamic Theocratic Fascism.
If we kill our enemy in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan before they launch more attacks it is a good thing.
We have to kill or imprison them because they do not have a traditional country infrastructure to wage war against.

As an aside, I was thinking…
If that Crazy Commie Kim Chong-il of North Korea lobs a few nukes and wipes out Seoul, Kyoto, Anchorage and Vancouver before we retaliate and vaporize Pyongyang and turn the rest of that country into an updated version of Alamogordo, New Mexico how will we calculate those costs?

Of course we could avoid these "costs" by unilateral surrender; that's the French way.


So you are saying that "cheer up, this is not as bad as Vietnam". I don't think any politician would make this kind of argument.

As far as I know, Vietnam War had catastrophic effect on U.S. economically, politically and socially as well as obvious direct cost in term of government expense which U.S. took decade to recover. In small level, such as personal one, some people are still recovering or may never recover for what I hear.

So are you saying this is bad but if we could stomach Vietnam, we could certainly stomach Iraq. I think the expectation of American public has changed significantly since then.

[Cady Goldfield]

What if the US started collecting the debts owed it by other foreign powers? That would about cover everything, wouldn't it?

[JimmyCrow]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
What if the US started collecting the debts owed it by other foreign powers? That would about cover everything, wouldn't it?

Caddy we could never do anything as "crazy" as that. Most of the US foreign debtors have no intention of ever paying anything back anyway. Their happy with the current arrangement. They eat every thing off the plate we put before them, complain about the presentation, then slap it from our hand.

[Senjojutsu]

So you are saying that "cheer up, this is not as bad as Vietnam". I don't think any politician would make this kind of argument.

No I was just trying to give some historical perspective. That the United States has expended blood and trillions of defense dollars since the end of WWII - not always effectively - but we are still standing as the one remaining superpower in 2003 - which pisses off many on this board (and around the world).

I may agree with you the expectations of the American people have changed since Vietnam:

1) No public direct criticism of troops in the field will be allowed - no chants of "baby killers" to be heard except at liberals' private parties, Hollywood elite soirees etc...

2) If you are going to send our troops into harm's way, send them in to win.

3) We have become too impatient...

[Vapour]

Well, during cold war, people had to face possibility of annhilation of humanity so the stake was much higher. No sane person would say the current threat match the one in Cold War or World War II.

People do tend to forget, I agree, but it goes both ways.

But aside from political correctness of this issue, can anyone give more objective analysis of political implication of Iraqi occupation in say next presidential election. Can Democrat sieze this issue or would they remain lame as ever. It seems that they still haven't figure out who is going to run against Bush.

[Dex]

The occupation of Iraq is costing 3.9 billion USD a month for the US.

Bush wants an extra 87 billion for the next fiscal year's occupation.

Sums don't add up.

ps the American budget deficit for the year, afaik, is 505 billion dollars.

[Senjojutsu]

can anyone give more objective analysis of political implication of Iraqi occupation in say next presidential election. Can Democrat sieze this issue or would they remain lame as ever. It seems that they still haven't figure out who is going to run against Bush.

The problem in the American Presidential Primaries which are to held in 2004 (although some candidates have been running since f'ng December 2000) is that first you must win your party's nomination, you must appeal to "the activists" within your own party at the state primaries and caucuses.

For Democratic Presidential candidates that mean moving to the left, for Republicans Presidential candidates (not applicable in this election, it will be Bush) that means appealing to conservative, right wing core issues.

Then one day next year in the chosen city of Boston during the last week of July 2004 a Democrat will be anointed to run against Bush, and they must immediately "swing to the center" to have a chance to win the general election in November.

The other party, Republicans, will immediately start running campaign ads illustrating "the flips" in any policy positions - or if they don't change - they will charge that the candidate's opinion in "not in tune with mainstream America". Which often times is true - each party has their extreme ideologues who reach the apex of their power every four years at their party's convention.

Finally the madness ends (temporarily) in November 2004.

So to get back to the Iraq war in American politics - the difficulty is predicting what will be American public opinion over a year from now impacted by events that have not occurred (future terrorist attacks, diplomatic success/failures, troop casualties, etc...)

[Senjojutsu]

One clarification, the way modern Ameriacn primaries are structured and scheduled the Democratic candidate SHOULD BE KNOWN WELL BEFORE the July 2004 convention.

I will say "should be known" because strange things happen in politics, especially since you currently have nine candidates, with "Team Billary" and even maybe Al Gore waiting in the wings to see if Bush appears to be beatable.

If another Democrat wins in 2004, then Hillary may never get her chance to run. She will be old news in 2012, and Hillary would show her true lust for power if in 2008 she ran against a sitting president within her own party. Although Ted "Wet Brain" Kennedy did it in 1980 against Jimmy Carter; he lost - Carter lost - all in all a good thing.

[Vapour]

Thanks.

[elder999]

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson discovered that he could not fight the war in Vietnam and a war on poverty. George W. Bush is about to learn the same lesson. The combined effect of his tax cuts and war spending will leave very little for programs to assist people in poverty.

The fiscal year 2003 budget increases funding for the military and "homeland security" by $42 billion, while cutting domestic spending by more than $9 billion. The appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services—which includes many social programs—was cut $2.7 billion.

The FY 2004 budget the administration will propose is even worse. It will provide very little new funding for anything other than the military and what passes for domestic security. Indications from the Office of Management and Budget are that the new budget will contain the largest deficit in history. Meanwhile, the military budget is nearly $400 billion—the largest since the height of the Cold War. Administration projections are for military spending to grow to nearly $500 billion by 2007. Estimates of the cost of a war against Iraq range from $100 to $300 billion or more, NEVER MIND $87 billion fornext year alone.

The administration's tax cuts will cost the federal government $674 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the elimination of personal income tax on dividends and the reduction of the capital gains tax on stock sales combined will cost $364 billion. The repeal of the estate tax will cost an estimated $30 billion. And all of these primarily benefit the wealthiest 5 percent of the population.

More important than all the statistics, however, is the moral issue of what this says about our society's priorities. A tax policy that primarily benefits the wealthy, and a federal budget that primarily benefits the military—while poverty, hunger, and homelessness continue to rise—is a direct affront to biblical faith. The Hebrew prophets frequently assailed their societies for spending on horses and chariots while neglecting the poor.

As Martin Luther King Jr. put it during the Johnson era, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." If he were alive today, he would be saying the same.

[Iain]

For me, the 'war on terror' boils down to one key observation. It's not about security (if it is, the Whitehouse seriously needs to look at shyte-canning whoever does their threat analysis), it's not really about money either (The US has lots, the other guys have none. Problem solved). It's really about two spoiled little rich kids with God complexes having one gigantic pissing match while the rest of us suffer to placate their egoes. Screw Bin Laden, Screw George Bush, and where the hell is my free undergraduate degree!

[Dex]

Originally posted by elder999
...
As Martin Luther King Jr. put it during the Johnson era, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." If he were alive today, he would be saying the same.

Wouldn't they just shoot him again?