9-11 6 years of BS, Lies, Death and out of control spending...

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Six year later... We are still in Iraq. Nothing has changed... People are still dieing... I find it ironic that the passing of the 9 Trillion debt passes on or about 9/11. I think our debt should be one of the most disaster of 9/11/07 since we are dangerously close to going bankrupt... Yes I know other countries have debt but that doesn't give us an excuse to continue to do so.

3,742 US Soldiers Killed, 27,767 Seriously Wounded

US debt now stands 9 Trillion Plus

WMD's Found? ZERO

Some words from Saddam...

The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, to die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or to dig their own graves, after they bring death to themselves on every Arab or Muslim soil against which they perpetrate aggression, including the Iraq, the land of Jihad and the banner.

It's a sorry state of affairs in America when you can trust the words of Saddam Hussein more than those of your own President.


3,742 US Soldiers Killed, 27,767 Seriously Wounded
For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of September 5, 2007, except as indicated.

US SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush is expected to request another $200 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.

U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion, in 2007

U.S. Daily Spending in Iraq - over $200 million, in 2007

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)

TROOPS IN IRAQ

Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007 (per NBC's "Meet the Press" on May 20, 2007)

Troops in Iraq - Total 173,685, including 162,000 from the US, 5,500 from the UK, 1,200 from South Korea and 4,985 from all other nations

US Troop Casualities - 3,742 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army

Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 297, with 168 from the UK

US Troops Wounded - 27,767, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)

US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home

US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire

IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ

Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times.

Journalists killed - 112, 74 by murder and 38 by acts of war

Journalists killed by US Forces - 14

Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 7,408

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 538

Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 305, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 94 status unknown.

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000

QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS

Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,135,000

Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 1.3 million to 1.75 million

Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect

Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%

Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%

Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000

Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000

Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007

Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007

Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24

Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%

Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%

RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)

Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%

Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%

Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%

Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%


Text
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Hahaha, very funny... Ask bush...
When did Bush tie 9/11 to Iraq?

All I remember is that 9/11 triggered the War On Terror.

Iraq is considered to be part of the War on Terror.

 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Hahaha, very funny... Ask bush...

You know, all the libs have always assumed that Bush would somehow tie Saddam to Sept 11.

In fact, they believed it so much that they overlook a key sentence in his speech on January 28, 2003 in which he stated:


Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

Now unless I am reading that wrong, Bush has actually stated the contrary when it came to Saddam being involved in 9/11.





 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: ericlp
Hahaha, very funny... Ask bush...
When did Bush tie 9/11 to Iraq?

All I remember is that 9/11 triggered the War On Terror.

Iraq is considered to be part of the War on Terror.

he and cheney both tied 9/11 to iraq. it was like a few months before we went into iraq.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
In a few years Republicans will be blaming Democrats for failures in Iraq.

-Democrat criticism of Bush didn't allow Bush to focus on the job.
-Democrat threats of retaliation or war crimes hissy fits didn't allow Bush to use more brutal methods or torture.
-Clinton didn't sufficiently fund the military.
-Democrats didn't allow Bush to invade Iran and stop their meddling in Iraq.
-The liberal CIA and State Department gave Bush bad intel regarding Iraqi WMDs.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,922
11,310
136
6 years since the attacks on the twin towers, and Bush is no closer to catching Osama Bin Forgotten than he was all those years ago...

PLUS, he squandered the support and sympathy of the world...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
In a few years Republicans will be blaming Democrats for failures in Iraq.

-Democrat criticism of Bush didn't allow Bush to focus on the job.
-Democrat threats of retaliation or war crimes hissy fits didn't allow Bush to use more brutal methods or torture.
-Clinton didn't sufficiently fund the military.
-Democrats didn't allow Bush to invade Iran and stop their meddling in Iraq.
-The liberal CIA and State Department gave Bush bad intel regarding Iraqi WMDs.

LOL, welcome to the future.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
My response to your cute list...

-Democrat criticism of Bush didn't allow Bush to focus on the job:
TRUE - Although he's sure done a decent job ignoring the Dems and keeping them in "their place"
-Democrat threats of retaliation or war crimes hissy fits didn't allow Bush to use more brutal methods or torture.
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
-Clinton didn't sufficiently fund the military.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND UNDENIABLE!
-Democrats didn't allow Bush to invade Iran and stop their meddling in Iraq.
FALSE - There is no need to invade Iran
-The liberal CIA and State Department gave Bush bad intel regarding Iraqi WMDs.
FALSE - The CIA and SD gave the intel they had corroborated and verified with half of the premier intelligence agencies worldwide.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
My response to your cute response to his cute list...
Originally posted by: palehorse74
My response to your cute list...

-Democrat criticism of Bush didn't allow Bush to focus on the job:
TRUE - Although he's sure done a decent job ignoring the Dems and keeping them in "their place"
FALSE - Bush's job is to deal with the representatives the people elect. If they don't agree with every single thing he does, that means democracy is working.
-Democrat threats of retaliation or war crimes hissy fits didn't allow Bush to use more brutal methods or torture.
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
...and not followed all the time. Current limits on interrogation do not allow torture of any sort, no Jack Bauer bullshit under any circumstances.
-Clinton didn't sufficiently fund the military.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND UNDENIABLE!
FALSE - Hindsight is 20/20, but during the Clinton years, Clinton had no way of knowing what the future would hold...for that time and place, the military was funded fine. And in any case, the President doesn't "fund the military", sufficiently or otherwise. Congress was responsible for most of the cuts, and a lot of those cuts were made by Republicans doing what any normal person would have done at the end of the Cold War. I don't blame anyone for not being able to see into the future, but if you're going to blame someone, at least blame the right people.
-Democrats didn't allow Bush to invade Iran and stop their meddling in Iraq.
FALSE - There is no need to invade Iran
Agreed...
-The liberal CIA and State Department gave Bush bad intel regarding Iraqi WMDs.
FALSE - The CIA and SD gave the intel they had corroborated and verified with half of the premier intelligence agencies worldwide.
BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.
The CIA had almost nothing to do with the decision to go to war with Iraq. The CIA's job is to collect, analyze, and present intelligence. What Congress or the Admin choose to do with said intelligence is not the responsibility of the collection and reporting agencies.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
...and not followed all the time. Current limits on interrogation do not allow torture of any sort, no Jack Bauer bullshit under any circumstances.
If they are not followed, and there is proof, then prosecute. End-of-story.

And trust me, you don't have to explain to me how it works in the real world. I'm NOT an analyst...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.
The CIA had almost nothing to do with the decision to go to war with Iraq. The CIA's job is to collect, analyze, and present intelligence. What Congress or the Admin choose to do with said intelligence is not the responsibility of the collection and reporting agencies.

I agree...that was my point. A part of the CIA's (and other IC folks) job is to comment on the QUALITY of the information as well so the political leaders can make the best informed decision. I believe they did exactly what they were supposed to do and weren't fooled or didn't give too much credence to suspect information...I believe it was the political decision made by our elected officials that was flawed.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
...and not followed all the time. Current limits on interrogation do not allow torture of any sort, no Jack Bauer bullshit under any circumstances.
If they are not followed, and there is proof, then prosecute. End-of-story.

And trust me, you don't have to explain to me how it works in the real world. I'm NOT an analyst...

There is proof, and prosecutions have been carried out...and I don't think we've seen the end of it. It's clearly a problem, simply dismissing it with "well the regulations say..." is not an acceptable answer.

And while I'm sure being secret agent man (or whatever) is enlightening, I'm not too encouraged by your casual dismissal of the analysis folks. Being part of the crowd at the pointy end of the stick is all well and good, but what you gain in depth in a certain area, I imagine you lose in terms of big picture thinking...not seeing the forest for the trees and all that. Everyone has their place, your inability to realize that does not speak at all well to your understanding of "how it works in the real world".

Edit: In any case, your clarification was unnecessary. Nothing you have EVER posted here has given me even the slightest impression that your experience or talents lie on the analysis side of the job ;)
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
...and not followed all the time. Current limits on interrogation do not allow torture of any sort, no Jack Bauer bullshit under any circumstances.
If they are not followed, and there is proof, then prosecute. End-of-story.

And trust me, you don't have to explain to me how it works in the real world. I'm NOT an analyst...

There is proof, and prosecutions have been carried out...and I don't think we've seen the end of it. It's clearly a problem, simply dismissing it with "well the regulations say..." is not an acceptable answer.

And while I'm sure being secret agent man (or whatever) is enlightening, I'm not too encouraged by your casual dismissal of the analysis folks. Being part of the crowd at the pointy end of the stick is all well and good, but what you gain in depth in a certain area, I imagine you lose in terms of big picture thinking...not seeing the forest for the trees and all that. Everyone has their place, your inability to realize that does not speak at all well to your understanding of "how it works in the real world".
ok, let me clarify, again: when I'm downrange, I am not an analyst. However, while in CONUS, I contract as an analyst. So I see quite a bit of both the big picture (strategic), and the ground picture (tactical).

But this isn't about me... what I was saying is that I completely support the prosecution of anyone found guilty of overstepping the humane interrogation guidelines we have in place - to include OGA personnel. I believe the lines have finally been drawn clearly, and nobody should be stepping over them short of a real live doomsday situation.

As for your EDIT comment... touche! :laugh:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: ericlp
Hahaha, very funny... Ask bush...
When did Bush tie 9/11 to Iraq?

All I remember is that 9/11 triggered the War On Terror.

Iraq is considered to be part of the War on Terror.

he and cheney both tied 9/11 to iraq. it was like a few months before we went into iraq.
The media started to tie it.

No one has ever shown an actual statement (without taking it out on context) that Bush and Cheney stated that Saddam/IRaq was responsible for 9/11.

What was stated that Saddam supported terror.
And we were in a War against Terror.

a = b != C

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
FALSE - the current limits on torture are sufficient and humane
...and not followed all the time. Current limits on interrogation do not allow torture of any sort, no Jack Bauer bullshit under any circumstances.
If they are not followed, and there is proof, then prosecute. End-of-story.

And trust me, you don't have to explain to me how it works in the real world. I'm NOT an analyst...

There is proof, and prosecutions have been carried out...and I don't think we've seen the end of it. It's clearly a problem, simply dismissing it with "well the regulations say..." is not an acceptable answer.

And while I'm sure being secret agent man (or whatever) is enlightening, I'm not too encouraged by your casual dismissal of the analysis folks. Being part of the crowd at the pointy end of the stick is all well and good, but what you gain in depth in a certain area, I imagine you lose in terms of big picture thinking...not seeing the forest for the trees and all that. Everyone has their place, your inability to realize that does not speak at all well to your understanding of "how it works in the real world".
ok, let me clarify, again: when I'm downrange, I am not an analyst. However, while in CONUS, I contract as an analyst. So I see quite a bit of both the big picture (strategic), and the ground picture (tactical).

But this isn't about me... what I was saying is that I completely support the prosecution of anyone found guilty of overstepping the humane interrogation guidelines we have in place - to include OGA personnel. I believe the lines have finally been drawn clearly, and nobody should be stepping over them short of a real live doomsday situation.

As for your EDIT comment... touche! :laugh:

I sort of figured we were arguing the same point...and I agree. I think the lines are pretty clear, no matter what folks on both sides do to muddy the waters, and I think those who cross them should face the consequences.

And as you're right about this not being personal, you'll notice how I've studiously avoided making any snarky comments about contractors, right? :D
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.

As spotty as it was, its the same thing, the Brits, French, and Italians had. Every intel agency in the world, as well as the UN though Saddam had WMDs. This fact cant be disputed because its on record.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.

As spotty as it was, its the same thing, the Brits, French, and Italians had. Every intel agency in the world, as well as the UN though Saddam had WMDs. This fact cant be disputed because its on record.

Intelligence is a pretty fluid thing, it's not a black and white type of knowledge. There are levels of confidence in everything, and having information about something does not mean James Bond snuck into the bad guy's hideout and took pictures with his sunglasses camera. Intelligence agencies are pretty careful to differentiate between "We have information suggesting Saddam has WMDs" and "Saddam has WMDs"...a point lost on most members of the public (and most politicians too, for that matter).