• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

And I said just because we hurled a few cruise missiles at them and had one four-hour bombing run, it did not constitute "war". 1/4 Million boots on the ground in Iraq--now that's war.

Dude, going by your definition there would be no WW2, just one long war against Germany which began in 1914, never ended in 1918 or started again in 1938.
Missiles and bombing runs are war acts. You are simply arguing the scale.
 
Can you, like, pay attention, for a moment? We were talking about Kerry and Biden - Senators. More Democrats in Senate voted for AOF than against. Now out of sudden you start talking about both chambers. What gives?


If only one of the houses of Congress voted on AOF, you would have a point. Are you aware that both houses of Congress voted on AOF?

The fact that you don't like to admit is that of all the representative in both houses, the majority of Democrats voted against AOF vs all but 7 Republicans that voted for it.
 
If only one of the houses of Congress voted on AOF, you would have a point. Are you aware that both houses of Congress voted on AOF?

The fact that you don't like to admit is that of all the representative in both houses, the majority of Democrats voted against AOF vs all but 7 Republicans that voted for it.

See the post # 148

Why wouldn't I "like to admit it"? I am not a Republican.
 
See the post # 148

Why wouldn't I "like to admit it"? I am not a Republican.


I've seen post 148 and I have no idea why you would deny that both houses voted on AOF in Iraq, and that of all the Congressmen that voted. the majority of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs all but 7 Republicans that voted for it.
 
I've seen post 148 and I have no idea why you would deny that both houses voted on AOF in Iraq, and that of all the Congressmen that voted. the majority of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs all but 7 Republicans that voted for it.

Once more, s-l-o-w-l-y.

(1) I was under impression that we are discussing the Senate vote. I wasn't paying attention.

(2) It was the Senate vote that had consequences. It is entirely expected that most Republicans support a Republican president. As most Democrats would support a Democratic one. Ron pauls are rare, unfortunately. Bush had the House in his pocket, and House Democrats who voted against knew it: they could easily vote any way their particular constituencies would find most appealing.

The situation was different in the Senate. Even without the Chaffee' dissent, Republicans would not have enough votes. Most Democrats in Senate voting "for" - that's what decided the outcome.
 
Sometimes the historical truth may seem weird to the ignorant.
When you are excusing the aggressive actions of Bush Jr. by equating an earlier attempt by others to uphold no fly zones, enforce sanctions and let loose the occasional air strike to a war, daily battles ending with an invasion with 1/4 million troops overrunning the country, you have no leg to stand when calling others ignorant. To say Bush inherited the "war" is either an outright lie or the epitome of the ignorant statement.
 
Missiles and bombing runs are war acts. You are simply arguing the scale.

So. Are we at "war" with Pakistan and Yemen? Both countries were hit by US airstrikes of varying degrees.

No. War is not the same as "acts of war". Bush clearly went to war. Clinton simply showed some muscle, mainly to enforce conditions set forth in the cease fire established in 1995.

You could even argue that what Clinton did was justifiable. Where as what Bush did was not, especially when he had Saddam's two sons killed.
 
To say Bush inherited the "war" is either an outright lie or the epitome of the ignorant statement.
No, actually it is simply a factual statement.

And apparently you don't like the facts, so you refuse to accept them. I've shown you conclusive undeniable proof that the US was at war with Iraq when GWB took office.

My guess is that you are a Democrat.
 
Last edited:
So. Are we at "war" with Pakistan and Yemen? Both countries were hit by US airstrikes of varying degrees.

No. War is not the same as "acts of war". Bush clearly went to war. Clinton simply showed some muscle, mainly to enforce conditions set forth in the cease fire established in 1995.

You could even argue that what Clinton did was justifiable. Where as what Bush did was not, especially when he had Saddam's two sons killed.

Yep. Currently warring against them. Just not formally declaring it through our government and Pakistan's and Yemen's. War. Campaign. Over Seas Contigency Operation. All the same thing disguised with different words. Im not sure about Clinton as I was a lad an not interested in politics but even he probably over extended his powers.

Of course there is a difference in some precision strikes and a full on ground force invasion. Still doesn't mean its not war just because its doesn't fit your definition of "full blown war". Still goes to show you that America is/was trying to pick fights with underdogs. Lob some missiles here and there. Put up some sanctions there and here. America is stoking wars with nations that have no desire to fight us with their armies.
 
No, actually it is simply a factual statement.

And apparently you don't like the facts, so you refuse to accept them. I've shown you conclusive undeniable proof that the US was at war with Iraq when GWB took office.

My guess is that you are a Democrat.

The military resources were at war with Iraq but, we the people, were not. Our military resources were at war with Iraq but Iraq was never at war with us. *scratches head* Walks like a conniving greedy war plot and talks like a conniving greedy war plot.
 
No, actually it is simply a factual statement.

And apparently you don't like the facts, so you refuse to accept them. I've shown you conclusive undeniable proof that the US was at war with Iraq when GWB took office.

My guess is that you are a Democrat.
No. I just have eyes in my head. And, those eyes clearly showed me a war starting in 2003.
 
The military resources were at war with Iraq but, we the people, were not. Our military resources were at war with Iraq but Iraq was never at war with us. *scratches head* Walks like a conniving greedy war plot and talks like a conniving greedy war plot.

We were no more at war with Iraq prior to 2003 than we are with Pakistan today. If the next president starts a land war with Pakistan by sending in an invasion force, Mohammed can argue we were already at war with Pakistan.
 
We were no more at war with Iraq prior to 2003 than we are with Pakistan today. If the next president starts a land war with Pakistan by sending in an invasion force, Mohammed can argue we were already at war with Pakistan.

When a drone army can do the same damage (not all but most) infantry can do then its all apples and orange colored apples really. So if we put together a 100,000 drone army that automatically resupplies its weapons and bombs 24 hours a day and use it on a country without chosing to use infantry then we never warred? Sounds a bit like cherry picking to me and using the scale as an excuse. This "inherited" aspect of the argument is moot anyways. If Bush and Obama had the will to get us out of war they would have. They dont and they furthered it. Actions speak louder than words. And what they did was promote war against nations and their people that had no desire to war against us.
 
When a drone army can do the same damage (not all but most) infantry can do then its all apples and orange colored apples really. So if we put together a 100,000 drone army that automatically resupplies its weapons and bombs 24 hours a day and use it on a country without chosing to use infantry then we never warred? Sounds a bit like cherry picking to me and using the scale as an excuse. This "inherited" aspect of the argument is moot anyways. If Bush and Obama had the will to get us out of war they would have. They dont and they furthered it. Actions speak louder than words. And what they did was promote war against nations and their people that had no desire to war against us.
THis thread is about the cost of the Iraq war. Airstrikes under Clinton dod not drive the cost up to Trillions. A ground war initiated in 2003 by Bush did. THe attempted occupation made it worse.

BTW: Obama put an end to us throwing money down that money pit by drawing down the troops and pulling them out in 2011, thus putting an end to furthering the Trillions spent there.
 
No. I just have eyes in my head. And, those eyes clearly showed me a war starting in 2003.
Were your eyes shut in 2002? There was clearly a war in 2002. Are you claiming to be ignorant of that historical fact? And that's the reason for your BDS?
 
Were your eyes shut in 2002? There was clearly a war in 2002. Are you claiming to be ignorant of that historical fact? And that's the reason for your BDS?

No there wasn't. I've stated repeatedly that airstrikes do not equate to ground war with regime change and occupation, which, as the thread title would indicate, is the key difference and point of discussion here since ground war costs much more than a few air strikes.

To say Bush inherited the war is a lie. Obama inherited the war. Bush inherited the problem of dealing with Iraq's belligerent dictator. He did not have to invade them. Saying different is disingenuous.
 
Once more, s-l-o-w-l-y.

(1) I was under impression that we are discussing the Senate vote. I wasn't paying attention.

(2) It was the Senate vote that had consequences. It is entirely expected that most Republicans support a Republican president. As most Democrats would support a Democratic one. Ron pauls are rare, unfortunately. Bush had the House in his pocket, and House Democrats who voted against knew it: they could easily vote any way their particular constituencies would find most appealing.

The situation was different in the Senate. Even without the Chaffee' dissent, Republicans would not have enough votes. Most Democrats in Senate voting "for" - that's what decided the outcome.


You can just spin to your little heart's content, and it still doesn't change the fact that a majority of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs all but 7 Republicans that voted for it.
 
You can just spin to your little heart's content, and it still doesn't change the fact that a majority of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs all but 7 Republican that voted for it.

And you can repeat the same thing twenty times, and it still won't make what you are saying relevant to the conversation you are pretending to participate in.
 
And you can repeat the same thing twenty times, and it still won't make what you are saying relevant to the conversation you are pretending to participate in.

Thanks for the minority opinion!
 
Thanks, George. The war to nowhere has cost us $2 Trillion and will probably cost us several more before all is said and done. And people wonder why the economy tanked, the deficit is so high and then they blame Obama for the fact that we have no money now.


That $6 Trillion could have bought us lots of bike paths, solar panels and high speed rail lines. But, no. Bush and his supporters had to start a war with a country that never did us any harm.


Dolts.

So how did $2T suddenly become $6T? I see a lot of numbers being thrown around in that article without any rationale. I call bull**** on this.
 
Back
Top Bottom