# Thread: Experts Calculate Billions in Long-term Costs of War

1. ## Experts Calculate Billions in Long-term Costs of War

Excellent report from PAUL SOLMAN of the PBS show the NewsHour

Part 1

[URL=http://]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-22.html[/URL]

Part 2

[URL=http://]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-23.html[/URL]

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-22.html[/url]

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-23.html[/url]

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-22.html[/url]

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-23.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Thank you

4. [QUOTE=Buster]Thank you[/QUOTE]

5. Even though most here do not believe this, IMO it is true....

We, the United States, are going to have to defeat the Islamic terrorists at some point in time...and, it will either be here in the US, or it can be at a place of our choosing like the middle east. You want to say the terrorists aren't in Iraq? I don't believe it for a minute.

So, the question to me is, what is our security worth? If we are not willing to pay the price to combat terrorism against us, just what is worth paying for? The Islamists killed 3,000 of us in the first go round...how many more of us need to die before we take the terrorists seriously? They are NOT just going to go away...they want us DEAD.

I'd rather see the money spent in this arena rather than the billions we pour down the sinkhole of income redistribution and socialism, where we refuse to hold anyone accountable for their irresponsibility (in actuality we are [b]subsidizing[/b] irresponsible behavior) or in the case of illegal immigrants, their illegal behavior.

Flame away...I know this opinion will not be popular on a website board that has members primarily based in NY/NJ where left-leaning politics abounds. But I pay more in taxes than most people make in a year, and I do have an opinion about how it is best spent.

6. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Flame away...I know this opinion will not be popular on a website board that has members primarily based in NY/NJ where left-leaning politics abounds. But I pay more in taxes than most people make in a year, and I do have an opinion about how it is best spent.[/QUOTE]

People are redder in NY that you want to believe. And why wouldn't they be? You remember that 9/11 affected NY/NJ area?

I agree with most of what you said, but remember. We all pay taxes. And it doesn't matter if you pay more...we all get an equal voice. That's because of that whole democracy thing we got going on....

7. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]how many more of us need to die before we take the terrorists seriously? [/QUOTE]

that's not the question we need to ask

the question really is:

how many of them need to die before they stop?

heres a bonus question: how many terrorists are there right now and is that number going up or down?

die hards of the forum will remember I recommended nuking the Middle East before putting one boot in the ground in Iraq. It was seen as hyperbole at the time and still might be seen that way now but i'm not against the shedding of human life, even "innocent" civilians.

What I am against are strategies, tactics and policies that are doomed to fail.

we want to wage war on the terrorists? Fine do it the right way. This crew rushed in with too few troops, no plans and now the situation is absolutely f--ked.

There is a way to defeat terror and there is a way to defeat a counter-insurgency, keeping trained to kill infantry (the majority of which are reserves and guard) in a long term care situation is not that way.

8. [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]People are redder in NY that you want to believe. And why wouldn't they be? You remember that 9/11 affected NY/NJ area?[/quote]

My remarks are along the lines that it is hard for me to fathom how [b]some[/b] NY'ers have so quickly forgotten....enough to cheer on and elect politicians that see the war as 'wrong'.

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I agree with most of what you said, but remember. We all pay taxes. And it doesn't matter if you pay more...we all get an equal voice. That's because of that whole democracy thing we got going on....[/QUOTE]

Not all of us are 'net' taxpayers (and no, I do not consider SS a tax...it is, despite being a glorified ponzi-scheme, a defined benefit plan. We all pay SS 'tax', we do not all pay income tax depending on income).

I never said that my opinion should be worth more than anyone else's, just that I had the right to state the opinion I hold despite the fact I believe it will not be very popular on this board.

BTW, we are [b]not[/b] a democracy, contrary to what some may say...the US is a representative constitutional republic, and there is a difference. But that is for another debate.

9. oh and by the way Greenwave you mention Illegal immegration as a drain on social services, but wake up my friend it's the free trade policians in power who are keeping the spigot of cheap labor open to big corporations. George Bush is the worst offender of this thinking.

Im all for securing this nation and preventing terrorism, but it's kinda hard to do when the national guard is in Iraq and are borders here in the USA are probably about as insecure as the borders of Iraq. Corporations want illegal labor until someone in washington grows some balls about it, that won't change.

10. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Even though most here do not believe this, IMO it is true....

We, the United States, are going to have to defeat the Islamic terrorists at some point in time...and, it will either be here in the US, or it can be at a place of our choosing like the middle east. You want to say the terrorists aren't in Iraq? I don't believe it for a minute.

So, the question to me is, what is our security worth? If we are not willing to pay the price to combat terrorism against us, just what is worth paying for? The Islamists killed 3,000 of us in the first go round...how many more of us need to die before we take the terrorists seriously? They are NOT just going to go away...they want us DEAD.
.[/QUOTE]

Question: Why do you believe us being in Iraq has any bearing on whether or not we can be attacked here?

The invasion didn't stop terrorists from attacking our allies in England and Spain, and there's no reason to believe we are any safer because of it.

(Remember, terrorists had been trying to attack on U.S. soil since the early 90s, and were successful only once.)

I know Bush always says we're fighting them there so we don't fight them here, but he's never presented a speck of evidence to support it.

Good bumper sticker, bad policy, in my opinion.

11. [QUOTE=bitonti]that's not the question we need to ask

the question really is:

how many of them need to die before they stop?

heres a bonus question: how many terrorists are there right now and is that number going up or down?

die hards of the forum will remember I recommended nuking the Middle East before putting one boot in the ground in Iraq. It was seen as hyperbole at the time and still might be seen that way now but i'm not against the shedding of human life, even "innocent" civilians.

What I am against are strategies, tactics and policies that are doomed to fail.

we want to wage war on the terrorists? Fine do it the right way. This crew rushed in with too few troops, no plans and now the situation is absolutely f--ked.

There is a way to defeat terror and there is a way to defeat a counter-insurgency, keeping trained to kill infantry (the majority of which are reserves and guard) in a long term care situation is not that way.[/QUOTE]

Well, we probably agree more than disagree.

I have no problem keeping the troops there to do their job...but we need to let them 'do' their job, and not hamstring them and leave them out to dry. War is brutal, and we as a society have apparently lost our stomach for it...even though by human nature war is a necessary evil as it has been demonstrated throughout time.

There aren't 'too few troops' there...there's just 'too few troops there' to carry out the mission according to the BS artificial limitations placed on those troops out of 'humanitarian' concerns. The only people whose 'humanitary' concerns are being ignored are the soldiers themselves as they are being subjected to an increased time in theater because of BS 'rules'.

Americans are too concerned with 'world opinion' for their own good, and somehow mistakenly believe that if we just try a little harder, everyone will love us...it's a joke. The only opinion we ought to be 'formulating' is one that states that we are a peaceful and benevolent society...until we are ****ed with. At that point, we become your worst nightmare, willing to destroy whatever it takes to stop attacks on the United States.

BTW, I would have not have offhand disregarded the nuclear option at the start either.

12. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]
Americans are too concerned with 'world opinion' for their own good, and somehow mistakenly believe that if we just try a little harder, everyone will love us...it's a joke. The only opinion we ought to be 'formulating' is one that states that we are a peaceful and benevolent society...until we are ****ed with. At that point, we become your worst nightmare, willing to destroy whatever it takes to stop attacks on the United States.

.[/QUOTE]

"World opinion," like it or not, impacts attitudes about the U.S. and, by logical connection, the number of people willing to commit terrorist acts against us. We'll never be loved by everyone, of course, but when we behave beligerently, as Bush has by tearing up treaties, starting unnecessary wars and condoning terrible abuses (Abu Ghraib) we give our terrorist enemies tremendous recruiting tools.

13. [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Question: Why do you believe us being in Iraq has any bearing on whether or not we can be attacked here?

The invasion didn't stop terrorists from attacking our allies in England and Spain, and there's no reason to believe we are any safer because of it.

(Remember, terrorists had been trying to attack on U.S. soil since the early 90s, and were successful only once.)

I know Bush always says we're fighting them there so we don't fight them here, but he's never presented a speck of evidence to support it.

Good bumper sticker, bad policy, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I cannot prove that they have not attacked here again since 9/11 is because we are in Iraq, but you cannot disprove it and in the end, there are many 'non-iraqui's' fighting us in Iraq so it is at least plausible.

While I am sympathetic and willing to help all countries that will assist us in killing islamic terrorists, I am not in this primarily to stop terrorists from attacking our allies. To be blunt, the european countries situations regarding islamic terrorists is in no way similar to ours; many of the european countries have had a tremendous influx of muslim immigrants over the past years to the point that in many major european cities there is a significant %age of the population being muslim...the same cannot be said for the US (yet).

You say the islamists have only been successful on our shores once, but they killed 6 and injured over 1000 in '93 at the WTC.

Everyone wants 'evidence' or justification of [b]our[/b] response to islamic terrorists...and I say 3000 dead is all the reason we need. Few seem to be willing to accept that our response is typical of how a peaceful, just and free nation would necessarily respond to an unprovoked attack. This situation is unlike [b]any[/b] experienced in recent documented world history when we are being attacked not by a recognizable 'nation' but rather by loosely associated people based on religious/political ideals...this should not keep us from tracking down the perpetrators and destroying them even if they are not in a 'recognizable' nation state.

This is a unique war..the rules are going to have to be made up as we go along and it is going to get messy at times. The question is, do we as Americans believe that our way of life is worth this fight? Do we have the stomach for it? We did before, but now I'm not so sure. Everyday we get war dead tallies, stories of atrocities, analyses of the 'cost'...brow beat by people using the war for political gain and media ratings. Somehow I doubt that this is how the coverage was presented during past global conflicts like WWII.

Last I checked, if we fail there is no where else to emigrate to...failure is NOT an option in my mind.

14. [QUOTE=bitonti]oh and by the way Greenwave you mention Illegal immegration as a drain on social services, but wake up my friend it's the free trade policians in power who are keeping the spigot of cheap labor open to big corporations. George Bush is the worst offender of this thinking.

Im all for securing this nation and preventing terrorism, but it's kinda hard to do when the national guard is in Iraq and are borders here in the USA are probably about as insecure as the borders of Iraq. Corporations want illegal labor until someone in washington grows some balls about it, that won't change.[/QUOTE]

I hate most all politicians, but usually hold my nose and vote Republican because even though they also want to take us on the road to hell, they're at least in the right hand lane.

I'm no big George Bush fan, but given the choice between Bush and anything the liberals are putting forward I'll take W everyday of the week.

With the Republicans wanting the steady stream of low wage workers for business and the Dems wanting another constituency for votes/entitlement programs we're all ****ed.

15. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]...there's just 'too few troops there' to carry out the mission according to the BS artificial limitations placed on those troops out of 'humanitarian' concerns...[/QUOTE]

These BS limitations out of humanitarian concerns are what separate us from the enemy. We could just go in there and carpet bomb the country into oblivion, killing every man, women and child and thereby erasing the terrorist threat from Iraq for now and generations to come. But then again...I thought this war was started in response to an attack on innocent civilians.

Terrorists fight the way they do because our overwhelming military force leaves them no other choice. They certainly cannot meet us in the open desert and engage our ground forces the way that mankind has been going at it for centuries. The nuclear age of warfare changed everything. No longer can countries or armies attempt to engage a nuclear power unless they too possess nuclear weapons. So they blend into the local population...knowing full well that our superior (yup) society does not condone the killing of innocent civilians. They use our own codes of ethics that we have acquired over the course of fighting many battles against us to level the playing field. Terrorists attacks are not just random attacks w/o coordination. Our enemies are fighting us in the best possible way they can accomplish with the weapons and logistics they have. It doesn't make it right...but you can certainly see why they do it. They finally figured out that throwing rocks at tanks accomplishes nothing.

So in other words...in their fight against us...they have altered their battle plan. Something that we should really consider doing.

16. [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]These BS limitations out of humanitarian concerns are what separate us from the enemy. We could just go in there and carpet bomb the country into oblivion, killing every man, women and child and thereby erasing the terrorist threat from Iraq for now and generations to come. But then again...I thought this war was started in response to an attack on innocent civilians.

Terrorists fight the way they do because our overwhelming military force leaves them no other choice. They certainly cannot meet us in the open desert and engage our ground forces the way that mankind has been going at it for centuries. The nuclear age of warfare changed everything. No longer can countries or armies attempt to engage a nuclear power unless they too possess nuclear weapons. So they blend into the local population...knowing full well that our superior (yup) society does not condone the killing of innocent civilians. They use our own codes of ethics that we have acquired over the course of fighting many battles against us to level the playing field. Terrorists attacks are not just random attacks w/o coordination. Our enemies are fighting us in the best possible way they can accomplish with the weapons and logistics they have. It doesn't make it right...but you can certainly see why they do it. They finally figured out that throwing rocks at tanks accomplishes nothing.

So in other words...in their fight against us...they have altered their battle plan. Something that we should really consider doing.[/QUOTE]

Ya see, I think that is part of the problem. If you honestly think carpet bombing a country is going to wipe out terrorism, I think you are mistaken.

First off, you have NO clue as to where the terrorists are. Sure, you would get rid of a great deal, but what of those that live in other countries? And do you not think that the reactionary measures of such an action would be catastrophic to the States? You'd have people lining up to join a terrorist organization against the States. The only way with this mentality is to carpet bomb every country and rid everyone so the only people left are Americans...

Unless of course, that is the thinking all along... :bwahaha:

17. [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]So in other words...in their fight against us...they have altered their battle plan. Something that we should really consider doing.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely....you cannot surgically excise umpteen millions of little 'cancers'...you may need to excise the whole mass....good tissue may have to be included to make sure you get all the disease.

That is why I asked if Americans have the stomach for the battle that lies ahead...because it is going to occur. It is going to get ugly and messy and the lines will frequently not be clear. Fighting a gentleman's (or western) war against individuals who have a completely different set of rules may be a losing proposition. And it doesn't help to have every move of the military micro-managed by a bunch of politicians (on either side of the aisle) or the media...that kind of stuff plays exactly into the terrorist's hands...they are using our 'goodness' against us.

18. [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Ya see, I think that is part of the problem. If you honestly think carpet bombing a country is going to wipe out terrorism, I think you are mistaken.[/quote]

Let's hear your option for stopping homicidal acts against innocent people.

[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]First off, you have NO clue as to where the terrorists are.[/quote]

We've got a damn good idea, and if any country gives these homicidal maniacs comfort or assistance, they should be dealt with too.

[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Sure, you would get rid of a great deal, but what of those that live in other countries?[/quote]

Hunt them down and kill them...no one said it would be easy. But then again, until recently, Americans have never shied away from uneasy tasks or those that might take more than a few years, if the task was worth it. To me, freedom from religious fanatics and terrorism is worth it.

[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]And do you not think that the reactionary measures of such an action would be catastrophic to the States? You'd have people lining up to join a terrorist organization against the States.[/quote]

Hmmm....3,000+ innocent dead, and you are still worried that we 'might' inflame these *******s more? Of course they may line up...right up until the point that they realize that when they do their life expectancy will be severely curtailed. Oh, and before you tell me they all want to die already... it ain't true.

[QUOTE=CanadaSteve]The only way with this mentality is to carpet bomb every country and rid everyone so the only people left are Americans...[/quote]

Why would you say this? We have NO problems with anyone that would let us live in peace...this is a gross exaggeration, and lends nothing to your argument.

19. [QUOTE=Greenwave81]I agree completely....you cannot surgically excise umpteen millions of little 'cancers'...you may need to excise the whole mass....good tissue may have to be included to make sure you get all the disease.[/QUOTE]

Or wait...here is a novel idea. How about fighting the [B][SIZE=3]cause[/SIZE][/B] of the cancer instead of surgically removing or excising the whole mass.

If you live in a house with a radioactive storage shed underneath it....it doesn't matter how many times you remove the cancer...or excise the whole mass along with good tissue, its just gonna keep coming back.

It doesn't matter how many terrorists we kill, unless we discover and eliminate the cause...they will just keep coming back. Like a cancer.

20. [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Or wait...here is a novel idea. How about fighting the [B][SIZE=3]cause[/SIZE][/B] of the cancer instead of surgically removing or excising the whole mass.

If you live in a house with a radioactive storage shed underneath it....it doesn't matter how many times you remove the cancer...or excise the whole mass along with good tissue, its just gonna keep coming back.

It doesn't matter how many terrorists we kill, unless we discover and eliminate the cause...they will just keep coming back. Like a cancer.[/QUOTE]

Let's send millions of secular missionary's out to teach the kids democracy and seperation of Church and State.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•