Happy "Shock and Awe" 5 Year Anniversary

[Txgoodoldboy]

And when I think about the number of wounded vets. Shocking!

And when I think about the number of killed Iraqis. Awed!

And Bush can dance and smirk all he wants. Good job Bushie!

 

[SoulSearcher]

Where does the time fly? Well...for 3,990 Americans (two Australians, 175 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians) it's not.

Sleep well Mr. President, mission accomplished.

And just like most American politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, you forgot to mention the real victims of America's wars, the Iraqi civilian dead.

 

[barefootbob]

yep shock and awe ... bush is shocked and awed that 5 years on we still haven't won

the numbers of Iraqi civilian dead is wide ranging .. 54,000 to 680,000 "even if" it is 54,000 that is fiftyfour thousand innocent Iraqis that died that wouldn't have if bush hadn't invaded.

the electric was on almost 24hrs under Saddam, now if they are lucky 8
the water isn't fit to drink now
how many IED's happened under Saddam ?
Saddam was brutal, evil and corrupt but Iraq wasn't in shambles

 

[Kulindahr]

If I could make a wish about Iraq...

it would be that every bullet or bit of shrapnel that has killed a soldier, civilian, or anyone but one of the terrorists or other aggressors against their own people could be melted together and poured nice and hot into the asses of GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer, and the other malignant incompetents who engineered this blasphemy against humanity and liberty.

 

[andysayshi]

A fascinating article here extracted from the book "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq conflict" by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. Linda Bilmes is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

How much has Iraq cost the US financially? Basically, these leading economists dismiss the US Government's figure of 520 billion, and analyze the real before-and-after costs of the war so far, and suggest more than 3 trillion dollars is closer to reality.

Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors.

The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen.

Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.

As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call "running expenses") for 2008 are projected to exceed $US12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $US4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $US16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states.

Even so, it does not include the $US500 billion we already spend per year on the regular expenses of the Defence Department. Nor does it include other hidden expenditures, such as intelligence gathering, or funds mixed in with the budgets of other departments.

The US is yet to truly feel the financial cost of the Iraq War. By the time the real costs are felt, when the country is in recession, when jobs and homes are lost, the instigators of the war will be free of public office, and probably resolved of accountability.

 

[SoulSearcher]

A fascinating article here extracted from the book "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq conflict" by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. Linda Bilmes is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

How much has Iraq cost the US financially? Basically, these leading economists dismiss the US Government's figure of 520 billion, and analyze the real before-and-after costs of the war so far, and suggest more than 3 trillion dollars is closer to reality.



The US is yet to truly feel the financial cost of the Iraq War. By the time the real costs are felt, when the country is in recession, when jobs and homes are lost, the instigators of the war will be free of public office, and probably resolved of accountability.

All because....

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Thanks, Joe.

 

[chance1]

War is hell

not a picnic

never has been

never will be

 

[chance1]

Fantastic input....

Sadly, we can add three more Americans to the list. Six more allies...

Interesting that that article has the American death toll at 3996 (including the recent 3) but CNN has it listed as 3990 (without the recent 3).

its not fantastic

cuz

u don't agree

no one likes war

blaming bush or rumsfeld or cheney or bremer .........

is not productive

we're there and need to make the best of it

i think the surge is working

i think iraq has a chance

and that is what we have right now

a chance to make it right - or as right as it can be

no argument on rumsfeld's bungling or bremer's poor decisions

none

time to make the best of it

that's what it is

sorry u don't think that's fantastic

i think it is the only option in addition to the best option

 

[chance1]

Agreed entirely chance, but lets try to fight wars which are just and right shall we?

Lets try and fight wars that have been thought through, wars with have plans, and contingencies in place.

Lets try and ensure that when we go to war, we have a clear defined action plan, and plans in place for the eventual withdrawl and hand over back to the nation we were at war with.

Lets try to ensure that we set an example to ALL nations of the world, that illegal invasions of foreign soverign nations wont be tolerated, and that issues should be resolved through the proper channels, and that only when diplomacy fails, does military intervention become a reality.

Lets try to show other fledgling nations out there, that the US and the UK together with others, do obey the laws, both of their home nations, but also the very international laws that they drew up...

If we cant do these basic things, then seriously, what's the god damned point?

clearly the plan after the initial success was .......... flawed

time to get over that

i agree with u on most - and if there is a next war - i would hate to be the president that is trying to "sell" it - cuz he/she is gonna have a rough time becuase of this one - even if it is justified beyond a shadow of a doubt

ur right to expect standards and for those standards to be met

i believe that the next president will do a better job than this one with this conflict and the next (god forbid)

 

[Jannus]

Where would we be without President Bush? Iraq now has the democracy they have longed for, and the Middle East is now at peace. Middle Eastern regional stability has given us low oil prices and has made America the most respected nation on Earth. And al-Qaeda (which previously had not existed in Iraq) is now under attack there. And, incredibly, the first American war ever fought without a tax increase will be free, since the Iraqi oil revenues will pay for the entire cost of the war and rebuilding everything.

All this benefit for only a few thousand lives! Well, okay, a few thousand lives and three trillion dollars and another hundred years of occupation and death.

 

[chance1]

You misunderstand chance. I honestly think your input is fantastic. You never cease to amaze me with your on topic and thoughtful opinion. Not many people would take the time to post a shoulder shrugging "them the breaks" comment in a thread where troop loss in a needless war is being discussed. I value your opinion just as much as I value you.

id post what i think of u and urs

but it would just get edited

so use ur imagination

 

[Telstra]

blaming bush or rumsfeld or cheney or bremer .........

is not productive

so mistakes from them goes un-punished ??

and they all got rich !!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's one for the Democrats in Congress:

a "War Profits Surtax".

Hit all profits due to work contracted from the U.S. (or coalition) government(s) with an extra... 15%.

 

[Kulindahr]

blaming bush or rumsfeld or cheney or bremer .........

is not productive

we're there and need to make the best of it

No, but hanging them high and letting the meat rot from their bodies would be productive -- it would make future degenerates think twice or more about starting adventures paid for in other people's blood.

 

[chance1]

No, but hanging them high and letting the meat rot from their bodies would be productive -- it would make future degenerates think twice or more about starting adventures paid for in other people's blood.

good thought

happy easter

 

[smelter]

You misunderstand chance. I honestly think your input is fantastic. You never cease to amaze me with your on topic and thoughtful opinion. Not many people would take the time to post a shoulder shrugging "them the breaks" comment in a thread where troop loss in a needless war is being discussed. I value your opinion just as much as I value you.

It makes me want to break into song, Mattie .... tomorrow being Easter and all:

Oh, who can take tomorrow (who can take tomorrow)
Dip it in a dream (dip it in a dream)
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream
The Chance Man (the Chance Man)
Oh, the Chance Man can (the Chance Man can)
The Chance Man can
'Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
(Makes the world taste good)

 

[chance1]

It makes me want to break into song, Mattie .... tomorrow being Easter and all:

Oh, who can take tomorrow (who can take tomorrow)
Dip it in a dream (dip it in a dream)
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream
The Chance Man (the Chance Man)
Oh, the Chance Man can (the Chance Man can)
The Chance Man can
'Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
(Makes the world taste good)

could u hum a few bars ????????

mattiemich - who started this thread - felt necessary to throw in the "mission accomplished" and "sleep well" bullshit

after a listing of the dead to date ........

war is hell

and men die

and blaming the president and the like ..........

is cute and funny (to some)

but it's bullshit

but it's the type of post that we're all too familiar with on JUB

instead of just:
listing the dead
honoring them
leaving it at that

instead its a political statement, gotcha, fuck u, etc.

yeah

happy easter

 

[Jannus]

...war is hell

and men die

and blaming the president and the like ..........

is cute and funny (to some)

but it's bullshit...

No, blaming the president is not bullshit. He started this war for reasons he has never been able to adequately explain, and which in fact have changed several times.

True military leaders will tell you they are the last people who want war. Had the president spent time in Vietnam (instead of wherever he was stateside) he might appreciate what a horrendous and generally unsatisfactory tool war tends to be for the solution of problems. Colin Powell - a former army general - understood this, and did his best to dissuade the administration from jumping into this disaster. The administration seemed to see war as the expedient "solution" for the Middle East. Such thinking is stupid beyond belief. Only commanders who have no real understanding of war - like Bush and Cheney - would blunder into such a quagmire.

Two months before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned President Bush about the potential negative consequences of a war, citing what Mr. Powell privately called the ''you break it, you own it'' rule of military action, according to a new book.

''You're sure?'' Mr. Powell is quoted as asking Mr. Bush in the Oval Office on Jan. 13, 2003, as the president told him he had made the decision to go forward. ''You understand the consequences,'' he is said to have stated in a half-question. ''You know you're going to be owning this place?''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E4DA133BF934A25757C0A9629C8B63

Bush doesn't get a pass on this. Had the US been attacked, then, certainly, Bush would have had no choice but to go to war. But because he chose war, he must accept responsibility for the consequences of war.

 

[smelter]

Thank you Mattie for eloquently expressing the feelings of so many of us.