US Wasted Billions In Iraq

Rob Henderson

Rob Henderson

Banned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100829/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_iraq_us_reconstruction_legacy


So, now not only have we lost lives, but we've lost money as well. Perhaps THIS will arouse the folks who say Iraq is worth it. Maybe this will jolt the people who say we are near to finishing the job. How's this, Glenn? Not only are we losing American soldiers, we are losing American tax dollars. God knows he pulls the alarm any time the federal government wastes money at home...
 
Rob I agree that a LOT of money has been wasted in Iraq. I saw a bit of it firsthand. I agree that we are wasting money both there and here. Too bad the republicans voted down using oil revenue to pay for reconstruction.
 
Unfortunately the damage is done. The real question is did we learn anything from the experience? I have this nagging depressed feeling that somewhere in the very near future some bright spark-plug is going to try and "rebuild" another country and create another money-pit for us to suck whats left of our economy into.

Our economy took a very heavy blow because of Iraq, I am not sure it could stand another one. Not in the condition things are in now.
 
This is just what some auditors are calling wasted. This is the incomplete or unused infrastructure. Not the defense budget (which seems to be endless).
 
senojekips said:
Billions???... I thought that it was trillions??
Click to expand...

B or T. At that point it stops being realistic. No one "REALLY" comprehends a billion, much less a trillion. But hey, don't worry, congress can spend all they want. We can just print more. :bang:
 
HokieMSG said:
B or T. At that point it stops being realistic. No one "REALLY" comprehends a billion, much less a trillion. But hey, don't worry, congress can spend all they want. We can just print more. :bang:
Click to expand...
I was not being facetious, I read somewhere several years ago that the expenditure had topped $3 Trillion.

As you say though, be it a billion or a trillion, it is well past my comprehension to visualise a billion or far less a trillion of anything, in a meaningful way.
 
senojekips said:
I was not being facetious, I read somewhere several years ago that the expenditure had topped $3 Trillion.

As you say though, be it a billion or a trillion, it is well past my comprehension to visualise a billion or far less a trillion of anything, in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

That was my point. Most people will hear we spent a billion on something and to them it is just a number. Actually realizing what a billion represents is a lot harder to wrap your head around.

Saw on foxnews that the bailout was more that what we have spent on the war in Iraq. I wonder if the infrastructure improvment dollars are included in that. Probably not.
 
HokieMSG said:
That was my point. Most people will hear we spent a billion on something and to them it is just a number. Actually realizing what a billion represents is a lot harder to wrap your head around.

Saw on foxnews that the bailout was more that what we have spent on the war in Iraq. I wonder if the infrastructure improvment dollars are included in that. Probably not.
Click to expand...
And the bailout actually went to improving AMERICAN lives, not destroying Iraqi lives.
 
The Iraqi's are just going to start blowing each other up. Whether they start now or after the advisers start to leave I do not know. But the way they are, they won't be able to work it all out and will resort to more bombings of each other to try to gain control. Iraq is a shat hole and will be for a long time.
 
istealfreefood said:
The Iraqi's are just going to start blowing each other up. Whether they start now or after the advisers start to leave I do not know. But the way they are, they won't be able to work it all out and will resort to more bombings of each other to try to gain control. Iraq is a shat hole and will be for a long time.
Click to expand...

This is as was predicted.
As soon as American forces leave, the place was going to blow up. Heard that so many times from folks who were there.
 
But, then, why didn't they ever blow themselves up before?

/sarcasm


Unfortunately, we can sit here and criticize and blame until we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that we did go into Iraq, we did try to help those people, and now we do have to take the lickin' on the chin and say that America may have kinda sorta lost one a little bit perhaps.
 
Rob Henderson said:
But, then, why didn't they ever blow themselves up before?

/sarcasm


Unfortunately, we can sit here and criticize and blame until we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that we did go into Iraq, we did try to help those people, and now we do have to take the lickin' on the chin and say that America may have kinda sorta lost one a little bit perhaps.
Click to expand...

What did the US lose?

Irag was not the United States to begin with.

It was all ways the goal of the US to remove Saddam Hussein. Done

Return rule to the Iraqi people. Done.

What they do with it has nothing to do with the US.

As some have said. They may blow it up. It is up to them.

I guess the answer is whether you think the Iraqi's would be better off under Hussein, or free to do as they wish.

Having never known self government they are going to have a very tough time.
 
Chukpike said:
What did the US lose?
Click to expand...
Let's start with more than 4000 lives and another 30,000 wounded and maimed, plus a few billion dollars.

It was all ways the goal of the US to remove Saddam Hussein. Done
Click to expand...
And that appears to have been the second biggest mistake. He was a greater danger to his own people and neighbours, than he ever was to any one else.
 
So getting rid of bad rulers is the go. Burma and Zimbabwe must be next. Then about 20 Tyrannical dictatorships in Africa should keep you busy for a while. Get real, it was about oil and the US will never leave. 50,000 troops still there and how many mercenaries???
 
koalaburger said:
So getting rid of bad rulers is the go. Burma and Zimbabwe must be next. Then about 20 Tyrannical dictatorships in Africa should keep you busy for a while. Get real, it was about oil and the US will never leave. 50,000 troops still there and how many mercenaries???
Click to expand...

Looks like you are just a little behind the power curve .....

President Obama has signed a proclamation that states that American troops are no longer going to be used in a combat role in Iraq, only in an advisory role.

As far as the oil, just how much money or oil has America received from Iraq in repayment so far??? We have spent trillions of dollars in Iraq, without receiving one single barrel of oil or one single dollar of oil revenue in repayment of monies spent in Iraq.

While I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein WAS a good thing for the Iraqi people (just not so good an idea for the rest of the region).
 
koalaburger said:
So getting rid of bad rulers is the go. Burma and Zimbabwe must be next. Then about 20 Tyrannical dictatorships in Africa should keep you busy for a while. Get real, it was about oil and the US will never leave. 50,000 troops still there and how many mercenaries???
Click to expand...

Since the US has not used oil profits to pay for the war, would you care to explain how this is the case? When you say the US will never leave do you mean the soldiers or the companies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top