Kennedy brands Iraq war a fraud to benefit the GOP

[Corn]

I'm glad we still have lawmakers that can stand up and call something for what it really is.......

So did Teddy call himself a murderer? I must have missed that.....glad he finally owned up to it..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina
If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

About 3/4's is going to troop support. There is comparatively little going to reconstruction. When this is all said and done, my best guess is that this will cost over a trillion dollars, and less than 10% of that going to reconstruction. People always forget to count indirect costs, like reduced pay for reservists- an obvious cost, just to the economy not the administration. This optimistic estimate assume things go fairly smoothly.

What's the number they said for monthly requirement, 4 billion dollars? so with 3/4 you're saying 115,000 troops require 3 billion a month? Now I don't claim to know how to calculate costs for them (another reason I wish the administration would plainly lay out where this money is going- exactly) but 3 billion a month seems alot to me for troops. Can anyone break it down for me ?

Lets see..
Troop pay, obviously.
Cost of support, which would include medical, intel, PMC's, military equipment, maintenance, etc.
When you change forces globally to compensate, that costs money too. That ought to be part of the tab.

It cost a great deal of money to keep one fighter battle ready and flying. Multiply that times however many planes we have. Armor isn't cheap either.
I don't think that 4 billion is too much, but probably not enough, maybe not nearly.

Reason why it dosen't make sense to me is, take a country like Israel. In 2002 Israel spend est. 9 billion on military expenditures, for the entire year. Why are they doing fine with their occupation given those limited funds ?

If Israel had to send it's forces halfway around the world and quadrupled (or more) it's mechanized forces, you would see them quickly go broke. War-real war, is very, very expensive.
Also remember that when they do act it is in a relatively small area. Iraq is a bit more than 20 times the size of Israel IIRC.


Edit formatting

Edit-ACK!

 

[glugglug]

In Bush's response to this here I think it's quite interesting that there is no denial, just an objection to the wording of Kennedy's statement.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: glugglug
In Bush's response to this here I think it's quite interesting that there is no denial, just an objection to the wording of Kennedy's statement.

Did you see the whole interview?

 

[SuperTool]

Kennedy is right. But it's not going to benefit the GOP, but overshadow the success in Afganistan.