English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The cost is now nearing $trillion. That's $100,000,000,000 of our tax dollars. So what do we have to show for it? A civil war?

Not to forget the 3100+ US troop dead and 15,000 maimed and wounded.

Opps....almost forgot to mention all the "collaterally damaged" 100,000+ dead Iraqis we liberated.

So? You would do it all again?

2007-03-31 07:18:52 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

coragryph - You are splitting hairs. The war & occupation are one in the same in terms of capital and human costs. Neither would exist without the other. Like demolishing a building and planning for the cleanup afterward. "Iraq" is the same. I count the total budget for the whole operation.

2007-03-31 07:29:00 · update #1

6 answers

Correction: it's 2 trillion dollars. And China is our main mortgagor & it's not protecting our country. It's created more terrorists & more hate against us.

2007-03-31 07:36:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, since the Intelligence was wrong about Iraq's WMD.

Probably not.

But then i wouldn't have invaded or attacked:

Sudan
Serbia
Kosavo
Haiti

Back in the 1990's either.

By the way, according to the CBO the cost for the Iraq war is set to be $456 billion by September 30, 2007.

Not one trillion dollars.

2007-03-31 14:28:26 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0 2

Your statistics are incorrect.

The cost of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was less than 10% of the numbers you are quoting, and that includes staying for a few months after to verify there were not WMDs.

The other 90% is the cost of the continued occupation, after "Mission Accomplished". The occupation is an entirely different mission, with an entirely different goal and cost structure.

So asking whether invading was a mistake in the first place really has very little to do with asking whether we should have stayed for 3+ years after "Mission Accomplished".

2007-03-31 14:23:12 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 2

Based purely on the act congress signed approving going in, and the 30 or so points listed in that act, absolutely it was a good idea, in fact it was a necessity.

I do not know where you come up with your numbers as the research I have done does not nearly get to that. Liberated Iraqis are alive, those fighting the liberation are the dead ones, and again the number you used cannot be verified.

Where did you happen to pull those numbers from?

2007-03-31 14:37:59 · answer #4 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0 2

Yes. The United States, regardless of who is in Office, will at all times protect its strategic interests, being in the case of the Middle East, oil.

Your way of life is predicated upon oil. Therefore, it is somewhat ludicrous to whine about the United States protecting its, and your, interests from those that would take it, be it by direct intervention or,as is the case, proxies doing the bidding of others.

2007-03-31 14:25:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Yes, to protect our country.

2007-03-31 14:21:47 · answer #6 · answered by SillierKimmie! 3 · 0 5

fedest.com, questions and answers