The occupation of Iraq is costing the United States about one billion dollars a week. Tonight on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Senator Trett Lott conceded that this is not a sustainable burden on the US taxpayer indefinitely. Sen. Lott said that other nations will have to commit money and troops. When asked when we should draw the line on spending in Iraq, Sen. Lott said that that would need to be determined at a later time, echoing the administration’s stance that the US will “do what ever it takes”. He also said that he didn’t think that we could pump enough oil out of Iraq to pay for reconstruction.
It seems to me that during record deficits, we will need to borrow more money. This, on top of a projected $400 billion deficit for 2004 by the Bush Administration before military and rebuilding spending, is placing the US in very grave danger of reaching critical mass, if you will. President Bush has made it very clear that we are in this for the long haul. Tonight Sen. Lott made it clear that Americans are going to have to suck it up for a while, sacrificing “discretionary spending programs” while we win the hearts and minds of Osama Q. Iraqi.
My questions for the Teeming Millions are:
Will the administration’s gamble that the tax cuts will trickle down enough to make a dent in our record deficits and make it possible for us to sustain a prolonged Iraqi occupation?
Is it responsible for the administration to tell the people just how much money they should expect to go into debt for this early? If not, how long should the taxpayers wait before they are entitled to know?
Should Germany and France feel obligated to help us out? If so, should they also be entitled to have some say-so regarding rebuilding and security issues?
And finally,
What if, at the end of the day, the citizens of Iraq decide they want a theocracy and demand that we all leave them alone? Can we really impose democracy on them if they don’t want it?
Take this one off the table early. It’s not making a dent. The economy is spurting ahead a bit right now, but, IMHO, due to the consumers relief that the war is over. But just you wait. You can’t continue to spend what you don’t have.
They should feel no need to help us. We did it, we gotta get out of it.
If they decide to throw us a lifeline, they should have some say so.
Go back and read the history of the US and its adventures in international medling from 1880 to 1920. We can do what we damn well please. And if the target country won’t hold still while we impose our will, well, too bad for them.
You’re joking, right? No, seriously, you’re joking, right? Sure we can pay for it, just as long as you are willing to give up your Social Security, funding for education the environment and just about everything else not directly related to the military. Of course that pay cut for the military that Shrub just enacted will help a hell of a lot.:rolleyes:
Hell, we should have been told 3 weeks ago, but since this administration has no problems or moral qualms about lying their asses off to the American people about the real reason for going to war in Iraq, then you can be damn sure they have no qualms about lying to us as to the real actual cost to us of the military upkeep.
France isn’t under any entitlement to help us out, in fact if they stand and cheer as our economy gets worse and worse, they are well within their rights to cheer and set off fireworks. You do remember "Freedom Fries" don’t you?:rolleyes: Germany shouldn’t feel any entitlement either. It is entirely their own free will, no coersion should be involved.
Well, we can try and impose democracy on them, but I think we’ve see how well that has worked in such places as Vietnam and Korea. It ain’t democracy if you have to have martial law 24/7 and a standing army on the streets of 30,000 troops to keep things from descending into chaos.
Given the strategic modelling and philosophy practised by this Administration there is, literally, no choice in the matter
The control of oil supplies is the very life-blood of this capitalist empire; no control of that essential resource and the empire itself is fatally undermined – see The Cheney Report (example: by 2010 2/3 of US oil will be imported).
So,* the empire simply cannot afford to not afford Iraq* – you either stick with the occupation of the Saudi oil fields or continue with the acquisition of Iraq or both. Iraq is still a much better medium term proposition than Saudi and far less likely to result in more election-losing attacks on continental USA, so Iraq it has to be.
That doesn’t stop you looking around for more – ‘Cheney’ recommends greater diversification as well as acquiring more sources.
Whoever tells the people the truth - what possible purpose would that serve ?
Pretty much the rest of the world (political or otherwise) feels obligated to do all it can to rid itself of Bush in November 2004. Most matters in the political arena are subservient to that goal, imho.
Imposing western-style democracy - is that a trick question ?
The US blew up the place, now it’s pumping oil out of Iraq to pay for it. The next step would be to ask for reparation payments…
I don’t think they should feel obligated. Afterall both opposed the war from the beginning, why should they pick up the pieces?
At least Germany said it would help out under a UN Mandate. Now that sounds reasonable and answers the second part of the question: They don’t even want to have some say-so, they want to have a legitimate body - the UN - to handle this!
I think American casualties will be a problem much sooner than money. Unless American troops stop dying in those unfriendly streets the current administration will run out of political capital for the occupation.
It is understood that we’re digging ourselves a hole. The question is how long before we cant climb out?
True in theory but…They depend on the free flow of oil too. Sooner or later this is going to be a national security issue for them as well.
Granted. Will President Bush’s ego allow for that?
BoogieBlanca
I agree. Either President Bush won’t say because in doing so he tells the enemy how much resolve we have or its a matter of “I could tell you but then I’d have to kill you.” Frankly, I think Saddam et al have a pretty good idea of how long we can sustain all of this and he’s licking his chops.
London_Calling
Sooner or later we’re going to price ourselves out of being able to buy oil. The money would be better spent helping our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere improve their own oil producing capacity IMO.
You’ll have to ask President Bush.
T. Mehr
Again, this goes back to President Bush’s ego. He will never allow the UN to call the shots.
Amazingly well said. I would change ‘Empire’ to ‘Republic’ (think eary Rome, if it makes you feel better), but that is fairly spot-on. Maybe we’ll get a proper Emperor someday; This messy business of electing a new Consul every four years is getting tiresome!
Until we are no longer dependant on oil, we damned well better ensure a steady flow of it to us, and the rest of the world. Given the need of the entire ‘global economy’ for oil, it would hurt America almost as much if Europe or Japan were denied steady flow energy, as it would hurt America itself.
Having some shaky shiekdom and a rocky theocracy controlling so much of the worlds oil doesn’t do wonders for the future stability of the supply; By moving into Iraq, we can now excert force on Saudi Arabia and Iran, if need be. We probably need to stop whoring ourselves to Saudi Arabia first, but here’s to hoping!
**
It does sound a bit off, ‘imposing’ free will on people. But that is what we need to do, in baby steps, if Iraq is ever to be a member in good standing of the Western world. Japan had a western-style democracy imposed on it, and they are doing smashingly well. Have faith, this will take time.
As to the OP:
GW needs to learn to say ‘no’. I fully expect the tax cuts to eventually turn into greater revenue for the gov’t; But in the meanwhile, we need to tighten the belt. We can definitely afford to cut back on some social programs, some foreign aid, and some of the military budget. (How many strategic nukes do we need, if we are never going to use the things?)
Of course, if the gov’t took a few minutes to account for all of the money that it has, where it is going, and shore up efficiency a bit, the savings could probably pay for this war and the wars to come, with change to spare.
As soon as they are reasonably sure, they should tell the people, IMO.
Should France and Germany feel obligated to help us out? No. Should they feel obligated to help the people of Iraq out (given how much ‘humanitarian’ crap the gov’t of these countries spew), Yes.
We not only can, we must. Theocracy is not an acceptable outcome for Iraq. (Unless based on the Unitarians or something like that). It’s American rule until they get a western-style liberal democracy going. Anything else, and we may as well have just dealt with Saddam. (Which is another topic entirely!)
To cite somebody else in this thread: Is this a trick question?
It seems that you have a short term memory only, so I will recall the facts:
Germany and France opposed this war and did everything they could to avoid it. For that, they have been ridiculed by the US government and a huge part of the US citizens (“surrender monkeys”??)
Now you ask if France and Germany should help out the US because the US runs out of money to finance the sideeffects of your war it didn’t consider beforehand, and all that possibly without gaining the benefits the US got from the war (contracts and control)?
This must be a trick question. This is so ridiculous that can’t even believe it. This is not just ridiculous, this is a cheek.
->
Should they? No
Will they? No
The people will begin a revolution should one of the governments even consider putting soldiers into Iraq, where they would die instead of the american soldiers. Personally, I would not stop marching on the streets.
Let’s put this into perspective, shall we? This is not going to break the back of the United States. Not even close. 50 billion dollars a year is only about 15% of the U.S. military budget. It’s less than probably half a dozen other agencies spend in a year. It’s less than half the annual cost of the tax cut. It’s only about 10% of the deficit.
Also, be careful about the numbers. Saying, “It costs 50 billion a year to stay in Iraq” does not mean that that’s 50 billion extra dollars the government must take in. It means that’s the cost of the military being tied up there. If they weren’t in Iraq, they’d be somewhere else. Now granted, there are additional costs to having the troops deployed in Iraq rather than Nebraska. Fuel, transportation, National Guard callups, etc. I don’t know what that comes to, but something less than the 50 billion.
Put it in perspective: There are about 150,000 soldiers there. The U.S. maintained 50,000 soldiers in South Korea for 50 years, and 37,000 soldiers in Europe for the same period of time.
There’s no doubt it’s a big cost. But this talk of the occupation bankrupting the U.S. or having to “give up your Social Security, funding for education the environment and just about everything else not directly related to the military” is just over-the-top nonsense. Even including the cost of the war, overall military spending in the U.S. as a percentage of GDP is still lower than it was during many periods of the cold war.
When did I mention that France and Germany ever supported the war? I admire their stand against George Bush. That doesn’t diminish the fact that it may be in the best interests of your county to help resolve this matter.
OK, so you’re easily entertained. Long live Jerry Lewis.
Isn’t it a case of cognitive dissonance to say it’s “all about the oil” but anguish about how we’re running a net deficit rebuilding Iraq? Seems like a funny definition of pillaging and looting to me.
Tax cuts spurring enough economic growth to offset the cost of the war: You’re kidding, right?
Fessing up to the costs: Yes
Germany & France: You’re kidding, right? No obligation to help, but they may help just to humiliate GWB.
Iraqi citizens’ self-determination: Nothing pulls people together as much as hating a common enemy, and we’ve become that common enemy. Even though we’re ostensibly there to bring democracy, they might align against us just to assert their right to make up their own minds.
As recent news articles suggest, I think we’ll run out of active military personnel before we run out of money. (That is, we’ll run out of people given that we always want to have a healthy amount of military here in the U.S. to defend against actual threats).
London_Calling makes an excellent point; we can’t afford to be in a position where we can’t coerce the oil flow in some manner or other. Anyone here remember the oil crisis of 1973? Jacked the world economy around nine ways from Sunday. The conventional wisdom in Washington these days is that we NEED to be in some position to MAKE the oil flow, regardless of what OPEC decides.
As to the questions:
Sustaining the occupation is not a problem; Sam Stone made this point, above. The question is: WHERE is the money going to come from? The military budget? I wish… but I don’t think so.
The current administration has made it clear that they aren’t going to tell us a damn thing, except when it is in THEIR interests for us to know it.
If Germany and France get in there, I would think they should have some say in how the show is run. I don’t think they should feel any obligation, though. Neither wanted to get involved in the first place.
The current administration will not permit a theocracy. The only administration I can think of in recent history that WOULD have done so is the Jimmy Carter administration. Hell, look at Vietnam; we suspended elections over there for YEARS, simply because we weren’t sure who’d win! So: if the question is “can we stop them from electing a theocracy?”, then the answer is “yes.” We conquered their asses, after all – we can do anything we like to them.
Somebody else said that phrase for a part of your quote in this thread. No necessarily for that part, but that was not what I wanted to convey anyway. It dos not matter. It is meaningless. It is not even important. Apologize? Are we in kindergarden that I have to apologize for this? How old are you?
Apparantly you forgot, else why do you ask them to help you out of this war’s trouble?
The US wanted this war, now you are in trouble. You break it you own it. I don’t see why our soldiers should be killed for a war which we didn’t want, a war which was unjustified and against international law. You wanted to go in, well, take care of the trouble.
The Europeans told you that it would be a mess. Your governement didn’t listen. We will not take care of it.
According to Webster’s English dictionary: 3 : insolent boldness and self-assurance
I am not a native English speaker (I am from the old Europe, not the new one), but that is still exactly what I wanted to say with this phrase…
Actually what happened was that after the Vietnamese voted to install a leader with Socialist/communist leanings, the US declared the election invalid.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I was born in 1960, lived in Germany from 1980 to 1984. Putting two and two together I think that it is safe to say that not only am I old enough to be your father, I probably am your father.
Now a moderator is about direct this part of the debate to a place we call The Bar-B-Q Pit. Feel free to indulge. I think that the underlying problem here is your inability/unwillingness to tell the difference between me personally and my imperialistic government.
groo
No, I’m not kidding. These are the assertions made by Sen. Lott last night on CNN. My purpose is to see what the Teeming Millions think about them.
Compelled to correct a misperception. Just being a theocracy does not make a government fundamentally antithetical to U.S. interests. Theocracy simply means that rule of law is based upon religious doctrine and the leaders have spiritual authority as well as secular authority. If the Iraqis freely exercise their right to self-determination and want to become a nation governed by the tenets of Islam, that should be no problem for anybody as long as they accept and practice the principles of the free market capitalist economy! But the neo-conservative foreign policy wonks currently in power clearly lack sufficient higher education to make the distinction.
I can’t add much to the answers so far, except to wonder if since a $billion a week for the occupation is such a good thing, why Bush can’t get his rich buddies to cover it by rescinding some of the tax cut? I know that taxes for schools, health and the environment are considered a terrible imposition on these poor unfortunates, but they should jump at the chance to cover their boy’s debts.
As it stands the answer to the question of who is paying for it is simple - our children.