Cost of Iraq War

I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.

Microloans at work and a way for us to put action in place of words.

http://www.kiva.org/

:clap:

Microloans at work and a way for us to put action in place of words.

http://www.kiva.org/

:clap:

That is exactly the way it should be handled, rather than by the state. On the surface, great business idea.

I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.

Of course it's silly - that's why it's a cartoon!

The discussion I was trying to get going was whether or not a campaign aimed at improving living conditions would be more effective than our current one.

6th Gen:Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with our national security! I supported (and still support )the war to get bin Laden....but, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is insanity. How many more people have to die before someone in our government wakes up and makes a policy change!

I had the pleasure of working with Prof. Yunus and his Microlending Program, and it is life changing. While I don't necessarily believe goverenments should be the only ones supporting such a venture, I agree that the money we've spent on the Iraq invasion would have been better spent in this way, or in almost any other way.

And before you accuse me of being against national security, my father severed with George Patton in WWII, my son's father served during the Vietnam war, and my son served during Enduring Freedom in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who are in the military or who have served know better than most that war seldom solves anything.

I'm bailing on this if we can't have a serious discussion. Iraq sponsored and funded terrorism. To say that that fact had "nothing to do with national security" is inane. If you want to debate better spending, fine, but don't start off with something ridiculously wrong.

Please let's not forget. Iraq did not attack us.

Regardless of the hows and whys we are currently involved in a war.

You can argue about the causes all you want (if so, please start another thread) but at the end of the day, we'll still be over there and will have spent hundred of millions of dollars more.

Please let's not forget. Iraq did not attack us.

For crying out loud- here's a quote from Andrew McCarthy, the U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the first WTC attack.

"If you want to say we shouldn?t have gone to Iraq, and should have anticipated the present chaos there, fair enough. But at least have the honesty to say you?d prefer the alternative: A Saddam Hussein, emboldened from having faced down the United States and its sanctions, loaded with money, arming with WMDs, and coddling jihadists."

From an article on Tenet.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2FiNWI4MTYyMjYzNzcxYjA0MzA0OGVhZWFhN2ZiNjM=

Regardless of the hows and whys we are currently involved in a war.

You can argue about the causes all you want (if so, please start another thread) but at the end of the day, we'll still be over there and will have spent hundred of millions of dollars more.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see something in there on providing for the common defense, but nothing on promoting the general welfare of residents of foreign countries.

Bin Laden was in Afganistan, not Iraq. You can try to rewrite history all you want, the fact is he was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Saddam was not. If Saddam had WMD that put us in immediate danger at the time we invaded, why didn't he use them against us to protect himself? if he had them and didn't use them, why haven't we found them? :idontno:

By your rationale we should be attacking Iran today. They are certainly more of a threat than Iraq was 4 years ago.

Regardless of the hows and whys we are currently involved in a war.

You can argue about the causes all you want (if so, please start another thread) but at the end of the day, we'll still be over there and will have spent hundred of millions of dollars more.

You're right. Sorry for hijacking your thread.

The military says there is "no military solution alone", so yes, if we would factor in the diplomacy and reconstruction, there might be a chance to find an end to this horror.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see something in there on providing for the common defense, but nothing on promoting the general welfare of residents of foreign countries.

The idea is that by improving their living conditions (which we made worse when we invaded) we provide for our common defense.

Parents whose newborn babies are dying in hospitals because their incubators don't have power and whose children are starving because they lost their job at the state factory join the insurgency. Quantifiable improvements in their life make them support us. Violence is the outlet for their frustration and anger. Feed their kids, turn on the power, give them clean water and they tell Al queda to take a hike before they mess up the better life they've now got.

Bin Laden was in Afganistan, not Iraq. You can try to rewrite history all you want, the fact is he was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Saddam was not. If Saddam had WMD that put us in immediate danger at the time we invaded, why didn't he use them against us to protect himself? if he had them and didn't use them, why haven't we found them? :idontno:

By your rationale we should be attacking Iran today. They are certainly more of a threat than Iraq was 4 years ago.

I said nothing on bin Laden or 9/11, so quit throwing up that strawman. I?d love to move on Iran and behead the government. The Iranian populace is ready for it. Faster, please.

I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.

This was the reference to being attacked that I was refering to. Not sure what US attack you meant other than 9/11. :idontno: That also happens to be the one used most often to justify the war in Iraq.

What attack by Saddam on our country are you speaking of?

I don?t believe that we should be going into countries to improve that country?s citizens? living conditions. I supported and continue to support the war because I believe it is a national security issue. I know many will post articles that show how we are less safe, terrorism has increased, etc. but the analyses are in a vacuum. No one can quantify the damage had this country chose to sit on its hands rather than strike. I don?t know that and neither do they. The US was attacked because we continued to show complacency on smaller attacks in the past and because we continue to prove that we don?t have the stomach for war. The cartoon is more silly than serious.

I said nothing on bin Laden or 9/11, so quit throwing up that strawman. I?d love to move on Iran and behead the government. The Iranian populace is ready for it. Faster, please.

You may not have typed out those exact words, but you did unequivocally alluded to that statement. That being said start you own thread as you have been politely asked to do.

Now back to the real thread. Micro banking is a great idea, a great cause, and can be done for many areas in need around the world.

Grassroots of one country helping the grassroots of another. :clap:

If you would truly like to move to Iran, please do. I am sure we can arrange a micro loan if you need assistance.

If micro loans are good, macro loans must be better. Anyone wanna test this theory on my checking account?:cool:

I said nothing on bin Laden or 9/11, so quit throwing up that strawman. I?d love to move on Iran and behead the government. The Iranian populace is ready for it. Faster, please.

Hey let's get N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan and anybody else we don't agree with. How about Germany too; I hear they harbored and educated some terrorists involved in 9/11.
All these countries caused us some national security issues therefore meeting 6th gen's criteria for attacking them.