Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?

[kai]

That's it??? We spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq so far, and all the Iraqis got for it was a woman's center with a few sowing machines and computers and an asphalt plant, most of which is likely being used by the U.S. military itself? They still don't have water or electricity but they have a woman's center and an asphalt plant? And you're offering this as evidence of rebuilding????

The Brits have spent a mere fraction of what we have and they've at least managed to rebuild some hospitals. 'Course, hospitals without electricity and water aren't going to be all that useful, but at least it shows some concern for people's health.

Man, what a dismal and hopeless picture this presents. And it sure does beg the question, 'where did all that money go?'

did you not read the links then?

 

[kai]

could someone please let me know why its so hard for people to believe that the USA and UK can not do anything good for anyone . but fall head over heels for the latest conspiracy theory

 

[BUDDY]

so we are rebuilding things in iraq ha? boy that is news to me considering all those billions are still unaccounted for and the iraqi citizen still only has lights for less than 4 hours a day.

if it was so toltarian, how come there was freedom of religion and how one wanted to practice that religion? under saddam, a woman did not have to hijab. if things were so bad there, how come they had the best hospitals and universities in the middle east? how come 80% of men had a job to support their families? how did a middle class thrive under such an oppressive pig? how come a child's nubmer one health problem was obesity?

iraq since bush jr. conquest has left 90% of the population in the pits of poverty and has left high health prolbems of double, tripple cancers in patients and high birth defects. before the first invasion, herion abuse was not a major problem in that country either.

no we invaded iraq the second time around because saddam traded his dollars in for euro. lets not forget iraq is an opec country and lets also not forget that oil has always been traded in dollars.

you want to know about the oil for food program, why don't you read the article writen by a u.n. offical who was incharge of this program and walked out on his job because he was so angry about the program and it was not because saddam was pocketing millions. the oil for food program came after the sanctions, long after.

how can you say we did not want a civil war in iraq? how can you say that we don't want any part of such a war? what sets the mood for such a war to happen? i want you to think about that and then compare it with how we destroyed the governemt, public works, middle class, society, and put a majority in to run this country. (iraq has always been a multi national country)

as far as bush goes, i guess you don't read the washington post much, they only reported what i said not 3 weeks ago. get your facts straight man, nixon resigned because if he didn't he would have been charged for obstruction of justice due to the watergate scandal. in bush's case it all had to do with the unconstituational wire tapping of our phone lines and internet use, and how he personally blocked the law to investagate it.

So, you are saying that the people of Iraq are better off under the rule Saddam Hussein? I just want to make absolutely clear that is what you are meaning before I reply in full to this post.

 

[almifkhar]

buddy

my point about iraq is this,

we have caused more deaths and destruction in that country than our little puppet hussein ever did, thousands more. how you can even try to rationalize this conquest and think that iraqis are better off blows my mind. iraqis did not need our help or lack there of. my point is, we are the ones who destroyed that country and we are the ones who have created a situation for a civil war. it is our doing, we are to blame for it. we are the ones who invaded not once but twice and we are the ones who destroyed the middle class in the mean time.

if there is a power struggle in iraq and it comes to a full blown war, who do you think really benifits? let me tell you who benifits, we do! because while those people are fighting among each other with weapons we give them, we will be steeling the oil benith their feet and the people will be too busy fighting each other to see what is happening. it's called divide and conquer, and you as a ex military guy should understand this tactic.

 

[nutshell]

buddy

my point about iraq is this,

we have caused more deaths and destruction in that country than our little puppet hussein ever did, thousands more. how you can even try to rationalize this conquest and think that iraqis are better off blows my mind. iraqis did not need our help or lack there of. my point is, we are the ones who destroyed that country and we are the ones who have created a situation for a civil war. it is our doing, we are to blame for it. we are the ones who invaded not once but twice and we are the ones who destroyed the middle class in the mean time.

if there is a power struggle in iraq and it comes to a full blown war, who do you think really benifits? let me tell you who benifits, we do! because while those people are fighting among each other with weapons we give them, we will be steeling the oil benith their feet and the people will be too busy fighting each other to see what is happening. it's called divide and conquer, and you as a ex military guy should understand this tactic.

I've heard from many Iraqis who disagree with you.

 

[almifkhar]

and i have personally talked with many who do agree with me

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

It's imperative for a man to know when to pull out.

 

[kal-el]

So, you are saying that the people of Iraq are better off under the rule Saddam Hussein? .

Of course they were, I mean isn't crystal clear by now. Look, Saddam was a terrible, brutal dictator, but he was like the head mafiaso in the region. No al-quada, no Isis, no nuclear Iran.

IMO we went about the Iraq war the wrong way. First off, just let me put it out there that we shouldn't have went in, but what's done is done so here we are. In this scheme of "empire building," we are blowing bridges, schools, buildings ,etc up and then using taxpayer money to rebuild them! That's some messed up s*** right there! Think for a sec if China or Russia had our superpower status; our military might. I highly doubt that Putin would decimate cities in Iraq and use his people's own money to rebuild them!

But to the question in the thread title, hells no a US President won't bring our troops home...if they know what's good for them. Look, presidents, whether they are democrat or republican come and go, but the war party always remains in power! There's 2 things a US President has no control over- foreign policy and monetary policy.

 

[MD]

I think the next (this?) President will send the troops back in

 

[Bunyip]

The USA MUST be perpetually at war. The economy is still dependant upon it. The largest and most expensive military on the planet along with the brobdingnagian industry that is parasitic upon it must have a war to justify it's very existence.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The USA MUST be perpetually at war. The economy is still dependant upon it. The largest and most expensive military on the planet along with the brobdingnagian industry that is parasitic upon it must have a war to justify it's very existence.

This is partly true. We have over 2 million people working directly in the military either as active duty or reserve. Then we have another 1.6 million people working with jobs that are private but directly serve the Military. That is more than three million jobs. Suddenly defending this would crash our economy and was one of the creators of the great depression.

However if we were to spend that kind of money on rebuilding roads, promoting business, advancing our education system, securing the border, large scale clean up and purification of our polluted land and seas, or some other project, then we would get to keep those jobs and slowly reduce the amount employed directly by the US government. If we could just transition 1/3rd of the military and military support that is paid directly by the us GOV we could cut the budget by a large amount and shift that expenditures into revenue generation.

 

[Bunyip]

This is partly true. We have over 2 million people working directly in the military either as active duty or reserve. Then we have another 1.6 million people working with jobs that are private but directly serve the Military. That is more than three million jobs. Suddenly defending this would crash our economy and was one of the creators of the great depression.

However if we were to spend that kind of money on rebuilding roads, promoting business, advancing our education system, securing the border, large scale clean up and purification of our polluted land and seas, or some other project, then we would get to keep those jobs and slowly reduce the amount employed directly by the US government. If we could just transition 1/3rd of the military and military support that is paid directly by the us GOV we could cut the budget by a large amount and shift that expenditures into revenue generation.

Yeah, it could really be that simple. I agree with you completely.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yeah, it could really be that simple. I agree with you completely.

It could...but it won't be.

 

[Bunyip]

It could...but it won't be.

I hear ya.
If NASA got a year or two of the military budget we could be havijg this conversation in a nice little hotel on Europa, watching Saturn rise.

America still has the best creatives, the best innovators - a return to being at the leading edge of innovation would save the US economy, but I have a bad feeling it will focus on Noah's Ark theme parks and Jesus camp.

 

[Revoltingest]

....over 2 million people working directly in the military either as active duty or reserve. ....1.6 million people working with jobs that are private but directly serve the Military. That is more than three million jobs. Suddenly defending this would crash our economy and was one of the creators of the great depression.

Why would the economy crash? Instead of taking money from taxpayers to spend on unproductive endeavors, we could spend it ourselves. Certainly, there would be some upheaval as these workers dependent upon government money find new jobs, but we'll be better off as they begin performing useful work.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I hear ya.
If NASA got a year or two of the military budget we could be havijg this conversation in a nice little hotel on Europa, watching Saturn rise.

America still has the best creatives, the best innovators - a return to being at the leading edge of innovation would save the US economy, but I have a bad feeling it will focus on Noah's Ark theme parks and Jesus camp.

I would settle with having 1/10th the Military budget.

In 2015 the current Budget puts the military spending at about 640,000 billion dollars. But this doesn't include the money spent on miscellaneous items for the military or extended costs that aren't directly military but the military induces.
Education is at 72 Billion
Energy and Environment is at 38 Billion (this includes oil subsides but does not include tax breaks)

And NASA....NASA the most advanced scientific research facility prior to CERN is at a flat 17.5 billion. Military spending is 36.5 TIMES as much as NASA. We spend SIX HUNDRED AND SIX AND A HALF TIMES the budget in one year on our military than the estimated cost of the ENTIRE PROJECT OF GOING TO MARS!

 

[Midnight Rain]

Why would the economy crash? Instead of taking money from taxpayers to spend on unproductive endeavors, we could spend it ourselves. Certainly, there would be some upheaval as these workers dependent upon government money find new jobs, but we'll be better off as they begin performing useful work.

You know of market shock correct? It would be like taking a fish that can exist in 30 degree water but was comfortably swimming in 70 degree water and suddenly throwing it in the 30 degree water.

It can even out but doing anything drastic has to be done slowly. And simply cutting taxes wouldn't do it. We would have to wean over the course of a few years and with a re-direction of funds rather than cutting the funds.

We would simply go from having 3 million people working for the government to 3 million people on unemployment and flooding the market with unemployed people will drastically increase the unemployment rate.

Rather though if we start with bringing people back home and doing jobs we do need done (such as the border, bridges, roads, environmental efforts, ect ) those same people can generate revenue at home and spend it at home (stimulation for the economy) and eventually wean people off of the government jobs into the private sector.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know of market shock correct? It would be like taking a fish that can exist in 30 degree water but was comfortably swimming in 70 degree water and suddenly throwing it in the 30 degree water.

It can even out but doing anything drastic has to be done slowly. And simply cutting taxes wouldn't do it. We would have to wean over the course of a few years and with a re-direction of funds rather than cutting the funds.

We would simply go from having 3 million people working for the government to 3 million people on unemployment and flooding the market with unemployed people will drastically increase the unemployment rate.

Rather though if we start with bringing people back home and doing jobs we do need done (such as the border, bridges, roads, environmental efforts, ect ) those same people can generate revenue at home and spend it at home (stimulation for the economy) and eventually wean people off of the government jobs into the private sector.

Another way to look at it:
Whatever the non-essential portion of the military costs, it is taxpayer money flushed down the toilet....call it $400B. Fire them all at once, & taxpayers would see this $400B in the form of decreased taxes & perhaps increased benefits. The money is still in the economy. The only issue is transitioning workers from destroying things to making things.
And the countries being bombed would likely benefit from our stopping that.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Another way to look at it:
Whatever the non-essential portion of the military costs, it is taxpayer money flushed down the toilet....call it $400B. Fire them all at once, & taxpayers would see this $400B in the form of decreased taxes & perhaps increased benefits. The money is still in the economy. The only issue is transitioning workers from destroying things to making things.
And the countries being bombed would likely benefit from our stopping that.

That shift and change is incredibly hard. The private sector is incredibly inefficiency at large scale change that requires the shifting of masses of individuals into new positions of employment.

We also cannot look at the economy as a single entity when it is anything but. Sure the economy as a whole save s $400 billion but we have three million people now without any employment or way to make money. The majority of these three million were no well off prior to this situation and now will be a burden on the government through unemployment.

It seems to make a lot more sense to use the $400 billion on thing we do need to make our country better and with each passing year we decrease it and shift people in smaller quantities into the private sector. Three million jobs over 2-4 years isn't a big deal. But three million in a single month would be.

Then we also have to look at the way the 400 billion would be divided in our economy. The vast majority would probably go into large corporations. The individual will get a small boost but nothing that will be life changing. But the corporations will obtain a huge amount of money and in the past we have found that when corporations obtain large amounts of money or tax breaks it does not in turn create proportional jobs.

Unless we kept the corporate tax rate the same and then closed loopholes and then made the small bushiness taxes and regulations near zero....

 

[Revoltingest]

That shift and change is incredibly hard. The private sector is incredibly inefficiency at large scale change that requires the shifting of masses of individuals into new positions of employment.

All the non-essential workers are already 100% inefficient. As soon as they're laid off, they've immediate potential to do something useful. And the money wasted on them will immediately go to more productive uses. Even if they go on unemployment &/or welfare, that still costs less than paying them to bomb 3rd world countries.

It seems to make a lot more sense to use the $400 billion on thing we do need to make our country better and with each passing year we decrease it and shift people in smaller quantities into the private sector. Three million jobs over 2-4 years isn't a big deal. But three million in a single month would be.
Then we also have to look at the way the 400 billion would be divided in our economy. The vast majority would probably go into large corporations. The individual will get a small boost but nothing that will be life changing. But the corporations will obtain a huge amount of money and in the past we have found that when corporations obtain large amounts of money or tax breaks it does not in turn create proportional jobs.
Unless we kept the corporate tax rate the same and then closed loopholes and then made the small bushiness taxes and regulations near zero....

Tis better that corporations keep more of their money, than paying a bloated military to destroy countries who give us nothing of value, & don't even want us there. Benefits would a mix of: lower prices for products made by those corporations, people hired by those corporations, increased dividends from those corporations.
But we non-corporations would benefit greatly too. I could sure tolerate a lower tax bill.