-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another pointless war?
- Thread starter Wirey
- Start date
Here we go again!
But I expect that lingering distaste for the other 2 wars will limit his ambitions in this one.
But I expect that lingering distaste for the other 2 wars will limit his ambitions in this one.
Majikthise
nude
This is about nothing but his majesty's legacy and dems trying look like they can be tough. If you are going to undertake a serious task such as war there needs to be emotion behind it. This is nothing but cold, calculated politics.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What doesn't make sense is calling it a 'war'.
What does make sense is that this military action, unlike previous idiotic ones, is done in unison with almost every country in Europe.
What would have made a LOT MORE SENSE would have been to put the hard diplomatic press on the region's leaders and have them be the mouthpiece's and leaders of such a coalition. Until this happens, the world will continue to play horrible, bloody, dangerous, inhuman whack-a-mole in the ME.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If rebuilding Iraq and Syria were to become as popular as killing, we would be positioning ourselves for stability in the ME because the region would be more stable. Sure, we'd have to get rid of Isis first, but that doesn't mean that we are playing whack-a-mole. There's never been a mole like Isis.
Are you speculating that once we've handled ISIS we will have seen the last of the ISIS, taliban, al qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim brotherhood sort of organization? Perhaps, but what would lead you to such a conclusion?
I think there have been other moles like this, Angellous, -- Democratic Kampuchea, Lord's Resistance Army -- and the Taliban were no slouches, either. I agree this Islamic State needs to be dealt with, but I have little hope that a stable, democratic country will develop in its absence.
The West's been mucking about in the Middle East for more than a century, and the more we exploit and try to push our values on an unwilling populace the more we radicalize it. If history be any indicator, another intervention would just be sowing more dragon's teeth.
The West's been mucking about in the Middle East for more than a century, and the more we exploit and try to push our values on an unwilling populace the more we radicalize it. If history be any indicator, another intervention would just be sowing more dragon's teeth.
Does anyone truly expect or even hope purely military interventions to be helpful?
That is absurd IMO.
That is absurd IMO.
Alceste
Vagabond
This. The US has been trying to put out a fire by drenching it with gasoline, over and over again. Either they are unaware that bombing people makes them angry, politicized and violent, or their intention is to make the ME angry, politicized and violent. I personally lean toward stupidity, but I would not be surprised if there are a variety of motives among the decision makers down there. Especially the ones with stock in the weapons market.
Alceste
Vagabond
I agree, but many people simply believe whatever they are told by the authorities they have submitted to. "We'll be greeted as liberators" and so forth.
once again, common ground!
dust1n
Zindīq
NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.
The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.
It was also an update of a 2011 report the Watson Institute produced ahead of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
The estimated death toll from the three wars, previously at 224,000 to 258,000, increased to a range of 272,000 to 329,000 two years later.
Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.
The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.
The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.
It was also an update of a 2011 report the Watson Institute produced ahead of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
The estimated death toll from the three wars, previously at 224,000 to 258,000, increased to a range of 272,000 to 329,000 two years later.
Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.
The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study
A minor quibble:
Long ago, Nat Geo had an article about the number of people whom Hussein was
killing per year before the US invaded. Don't quote me, but I recall something on
the order of 20,000 per month. Bear in mind that this wasn't all peacetime, since he
made war on Iran & the Kurds. One could argue that the death toll actually dropped
as a result of Dubya's attack on Iraq. (Btw, I know Iraqi ex-pats who describe a
country far scarier & deadlier than what Michael Moore portrays...disappearances,
murder, torture, oppression.)
But even if there were a net positive humanitarian result in Iraq, it still in no way
justifies the horrendous cost we are bearing.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
I was more concerned about the money I'm expected to pay for this. Iraq has always been a place of murder, since the Ottoman Empire fell, and the French and British broke up the Middle East for control.
Of course, there was always the risk that the US might find arming Iraq useful again,
in which case the friskier death toll would resume. Even today, that problem looms.
With all the US & Israeli war cries about preemptive attacks on Iran, if opportunity
arises, the US might decide that this is best done by proxy with Iraq....again. I don't
put this past the likes of Obamas, McCains, Pelosis & others.
Leaders always fancy themselves as brilliant chess players, but the game of war is
more like an unholy union of poker & go. And our leaders are ill equipped to play.
Last edited:
Hey! I'm a Go player, don't go around besmirching the game of Go like that!
Yerda
Veteran Member
Groundhog Day again, aye?