The hypocrisy of non-war supporters

[Bitek]

As an aside, I rather like the idea of keeping taxpayer money in the fold, with the neat little benefit of some of that money ending right back into government coffers.

I don't, I rather see MY money not being spent at all. I'm not very happy that my tax money is just a giant cash cow for Haliburton/Bectel and other Bush&Cheney Inc.'s friends. Ever wonder just how much of YOUR money was spent for this whole operation? How much is Iraqi freedom worth to you? $500, $1000, $5000 of your dollars a year?

If Bush had to call you up on the phone like a telemarketer asking for a donation for his endeavor, would you write a check?

"Hello, Sir? Hi this is the President calling from Washington, and I wanted to talk to you about an exciting new opportunity to invade the second-most oil-rich nation on the Earth. With your help, we can ensure freedom from terrorists, WMDs and high gas prices for years to come! For a $500 donation you will get; an exclusive DVD (w/THX) of us bombing the hell out the Iraqi army and most major cities, commorative keychain, and a free t-shirt with the logo "I invaded Baghdad, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt." At the $1000 level, you will also get a post card sent from the... new Iraqi postal service! featuring a picture of throngs of happy Iraqis standing before thier beautifully rebuilt country. Lastly, For contributions above $3000, (and a 10 yr commitment...*cough*) you can get the "Democracy Special." With this you'll get the warm fussy feeling knowing you've spread democracy to these backward people. You will also get your own Real Iraqi Penpal, Offering Friendship Forever, (RIPOFF) who will write you to tell you why America is thier best freind, EVER!, and how pizza and rock music are the Best!
...Now all I need is a Visa or Mastercard number..." *click* "..Hello?...Sir?"

Sarcasm and geopolitical considerations aside, I care about how much its going to cost ME. If some Fr/Ger/Rus company can do it for a third the cost, than by all means, give them the contract.
I just have to realize it isn't going to work this way. [/HOPE] [PREPARE_FOR_GOUGING]

Chess: Thx!

 

[alchemize]

$87 billion divided by 300 million = $290 per person. So $1,160 for my family to take out Iraq. If I got to choose between that, or say, another failed attempt at "fixing healthcare", or farm subsidies, or welfare, I'll take Iraq. At least I know it isn't going to be repeated every year till eternity, should be a one-two time cost. (I'm sure we'll have a 2004 - 2005 cost)

 

[DealMonkey]

For a $500 donation you will get; an exclusive DVD (w/THX) of us bombing the hell out the Iraqi army and most major cities, commorative keychain, and a free t-shirt with the logo "I invaded Baghdad, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt."

$500?! Holy crap. I think you get this stuff free for watching Fox News, so you probably won't get any takers there...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

For a $500 donation you will get; an exclusive DVD (w/THX) of us bombing the hell out the Iraqi army and most major cities, commorative keychain, and a free t-shirt with the logo "I invaded Baghdad, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt."

$500?! Holy crap. I think you get this stuff free for watching Fox News, so you probably won't get any takers there...

Hey were's all the cool footage from this war like we got during the last war?

 

[Corn]

I don't, I rather see MY money not being spent at all.

First let me state that if the world were perfect I would rather not see my money spent in Iraq at all as well.

With that out of the way, let's address the your question as to how much *I* would spend. How about I say, eh.....I'm not sure. I haven't pondered my own personal contribution to the point of what cost would price me out of that market. It could, however, be quite a lot--and a lot more than what the "average" American taxpayer would pay:

My sister-in-law has quite an extended family Iraq (she immigrated with her parents as a child in the early 70's). I also happen to have many friends and acquaintences who also have family still living in Iraq and I don't hear them complaining about the cost of this war (I grew up and work in an area that has probably the largest concentration of Arab immigrants, the majority of which are from Iraq). Are they all happy with the outcome of this war? Not at all. Do they solely blame Bush? Some do, but for the most part I get the same reaction: Shaking heads in despair and disbelief that the majority population in Iraq seem content to only let the American military take the risks of trying to keep the peace. Although it seems that the concensus is that if Saddam were to be found then it might be easier getting the locals involved in their own defense.............

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chess9
Hafen:

You've come close to exposing what is the real danger for the U.S. We have so badly alienated our traditional allies that if we have a serious problem here will they help us the way they helped in Afghanistan? I don't think so. Although the U.S. can handle any conflict from a military perspective, we cannot handle all conflicts (actually, that should read "NO CONFLICTS") from political, moral, or financial perspectives.

Before you tell your mother to go F+++ OFF perhaps you should stop and consider the consequences?

Also, being of French extraction I wan't to thank Jimmy Carter for reminding me about the important part the French played in the American Revolution. We have our freedom in large part because the French hated the British so much they were willing to trudge over here to kill them. I'd suggest the right wing wackos on the Fox Cartoon Network give a bow to my ancestors for their First Amendment right to be complete morons.

-Robert

You mean France got involved in a conflict across the Pacific when they weren't being directly threatened? What was their excuse? WMD?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: alchemize
$87 billion divided by 300 million = $290 per person. So $1,160 for my family to take out Iraq. If I got to choose between that, or say, another failed attempt at "fixing healthcare", or farm subsidies, or welfare, I'll take Iraq. At least I know it isn't going to be repeated every year till eternity, should be a one-two time cost. (I'm sure we'll have a 2004 - 2005 cost)

The 87 billion is only the most recent payment made. There was another 80 billion spent earlier in the year, plus there will be more money needed in the future.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Hafen:

You've come close to exposing what is the real danger for the U.S. We have so badly alienated our traditional allies that if we have a serious problem here will they help us the way they helped in Afghanistan? I don't think so. Although the U.S. can handle any conflict from a military perspective, we cannot handle all conflicts (actually, that should read "NO CONFLICTS") from political, moral, or financial perspectives.

Before you tell your mother to go F+++ OFF perhaps you should stop and consider the consequences?

Also, being of French extraction I wan't to thank Jimmy Carter for reminding me about the important part the French played in the American Revolution. We have our freedom in large part because the French hated the British so much they were willing to trudge over here to kill them. I'd suggest the right wing wackos on the Fox Cartoon Network give a bow to my ancestors for their First Amendment right to be complete morons.

-Robert

You mean France got involved in a conflict across the Pacific when they weren't being directly threatened? What was their excuse? WMD?

That would be the Atlantic.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genesys
answer this question, what have any of the non war supporters [France, Germany, Russia, et all] done to DESERVE a chance to make money off of rebuilding Iraq? not a damn thing, thats what! they contributed no money, no troops, and no time to even help in war planning. their soldiers blood has not been spilled, their money has not been spent to fund a war, and now they think they can get a piece of profiteering action!

Answer this then, who get to decide who deserve a chance to make money off of rebuilding Iraq? American?

Last time I checked, Bush still claiming American are there to liberate not occupy. So how does a non-occupying force get to decide who gets to profit in Iraq? Isn't that Iraqi's decision since it is their country?

Go with the reason you cited, if a country invade another country and won, it is by their right to profit from the invasion since they spent the money, plan the war and their soldier spilled blood?

The arguement come down to this, what is American's role in Iraq? From the look of it and how people argue in this board, there is no question that American sees Iraqi as their backyard and decide anything they sees fit for the Iraqis.

And American still wonder why people see them as occupiers and there is anti-American sentiment?

I think a contrast with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan would re-inforce the point. In those reconstructions the US went out of its' way to not appear to be profiting from the reconstruction. Local people and companies were favored above others, which had a dual effect of employing locals and providing them an Income. Foreign companies or workers were only used when necessary and were chosen in a fair and open manner. Of course the situation in Iraq may mean a lack of expertise in some areas, but I wonder just how true this is. After all, it's not like Iraq has never had an Oil pipeline, Oil wells, roads, buildings, or other structures before.

 

[chess9]

Hero:

I realize many kids these days don't take geography but it would most likely have been the Atlantic Ocean since a trip via the Pacific would have taken about 4-6 times longer depending on seas in the Pacific.

Anyway, you may remember The Hundred Years War? <1336-1565 [this is the way the English count] > The French came to hate the English who finally gave up the attempt to conquer France in favor of conquering the rest of the world. By the 18th Century the English and French had encountered each other many other times, and afternoon tea was rarely on the agenda. At any rate, the French were more than willing to spill English blood in America. FWIW, they actually spilled a lot of American blood as well because, as you are no doubt aware, most of those fighting on the side of England were naturalized Americans who had, at some earlier time, sworn allegiance to England. As Jimmy Carter points out in his new book, "English" fathers often fought American sons. This was almost as bad as the civil war and is certainly one of the sad chapters in American history. But, that was a war worth fighting. I'm not so sure the Iraqis will be as pleased with their outcome as we are with ours.

So, not much in the way of WMDs were around, but the French were still willing to travel a long distance to kick some English butt. Hatred has a long memory.

Since I have an English Catholic mother and a Swiss/French Jewish father, I can honestly say I harbor no resentment against the English, French, Catholics or Jews. No comment about the Swiss. <except to say their conduct in WWII is too tawdry for polite conversation> Nonetheless I regard right wing Republicans as a festering sore on the body politic and would trade them for almost anyone if only some country would take the bloody leeches.

[N.B.: I use "naturalized" only in the loosest sense, not the legal sense.]

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: alchemize
$87 billion divided by 300 million = $290 per person. So $1,160 for my family to take out Iraq. If I got to choose between that, or say, another failed attempt at "fixing healthcare", or farm subsidies, or welfare, I'll take Iraq. At least I know it isn't going to be repeated every year till eternity, should be a one-two time cost. (I'm sure we'll have a 2004 - 2005 cost)

The 87 billion is only the most recent payment made. There was another 80 billion spent earlier in the year, plus there will be more money needed in the future.

The last estimate I saw was about $300 Billion, assuming we get out of there by 2004 which seems unlikely. The puts the per capita cost at over $1000 for a total of over $4000 for Alchemize's family of four.

While he is welcome to spend his $4000+ on invading Iraq, I would certainly not choose to do so. It's about $4000 more than I'm willing to pay to paint a big red bull's-eye on the United States for all the future Middle Eastern terrorist nut jobs looking for something to hate. But that's just me; others may enjoy being a target. It's certainly a boon for the military-industrial complex and any Americans bothered by our open lifestyle and pesky civil liberties.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Hafen:

You've come close to exposing what is the real danger for the U.S. We have so badly alienated our traditional allies that if we have a serious problem here will they help us the way they helped in Afghanistan? I don't think so. Although the U.S. can handle any conflict from a military perspective, we cannot handle all conflicts (actually, that should read "NO CONFLICTS") from political, moral, or financial perspectives.

Before you tell your mother to go F+++ OFF perhaps you should stop and consider the consequences?

Also, being of French extraction I wan't to thank Jimmy Carter for reminding me about the important part the French played in the American Revolution. We have our freedom in large part because the French hated the British so much they were willing to trudge over here to kill them. I'd suggest the right wing wackos on the Fox Cartoon Network give a bow to my ancestors for their First Amendment right to be complete morons.

-Robert

You mean France got involved in a conflict across the Pacific when they weren't being directly threatened? What was their excuse? WMD?

That would be the Atlantic.

Technically, there's only one ocean and somebody could sail to the US from France and cross the Pacific. I'm typing during brief breaks while working and it's been a long couple days, nevertheless, I deserve whatever ribbing I set myself up for especially since I'd have been merciless were the situation reversed.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chess9
Hero:

I realize many kids these days don't take geography but it would most likely have been the Atlantic Ocean since a trip via the Pacific would have taken about 4-6 times longer depending on seas in the Pacific.

Anyway, you may remember The Hundred Years War? <1336-1565 [this is the way the English count] > The French came to hate the English who finally gave up the attempt to conquer France in favor of conquering the rest of the world. By the 18th Century the English and French had encountered each other many other times, and afternoon tea was rarely on the agenda. At any rate, the French were more than willing to spill English blood in America. FWIW, they actually spilled a lot of American blood as well because, as you are no doubt aware, most of those fighting on the side of England were naturalized Americans who had, at some earlier time, sworn allegiance to England. As Jimmy Carter points out in his new book, "English" fathers often fought American sons. This was almost as bad as the civil war and is certainly one of the sad chapters in American history. But, that was a war worth fighting. I'm not so sure the Iraqis will be as pleased with their outcome as we are with ours.

So, not much in the way of WMDs were around, but the French were still willing to travel a long distance to kick some English butt. Hatred has a long memory.

Since I have an English Catholic mother and a Swiss/French Jewish father, I can honestly say I harbor no resentment against the English, French, Catholics or Jews. No comment about the Swiss. <except to say their conduct in WWII is too tawdry for polite conversation> Nonetheless I regard right wing Republicans as a festering sore on the body politic and would trade them for almost anyone if only some country would take the bloody leeches.

[N.B.: I use "naturalized" only in the loosest sense, not the legal sense.]

-Robert

You couldn't tell that that was a joke?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: chess9
Hero:

I realize many kids these days don't take geography but it would most likely have been the Atlantic Ocean since a trip via the Pacific would have taken about 4-6 times longer depending on seas in the Pacific.

Anyway, you may remember The Hundred Years War? <1336-1565 [this is the way the English count] > The French came to hate the English who finally gave up the attempt to conquer France in favor of conquering the rest of the world. By the 18th Century the English and French had encountered each other many other times, and afternoon tea was rarely on the agenda. At any rate, the French were more than willing to spill English blood in America. FWIW, they actually spilled a lot of American blood as well because, as you are no doubt aware, most of those fighting on the side of England were naturalized Americans who had, at some earlier time, sworn allegiance to England. As Jimmy Carter points out in his new book, "English" fathers often fought American sons. This was almost as bad as the civil war and is certainly one of the sad chapters in American history. But, that was a war worth fighting. I'm not so sure the Iraqis will be as pleased with their outcome as we are with ours.

So, not much in the way of WMDs were around, but the French were still willing to travel a long distance to kick some English butt. Hatred has a long memory.

Since I have an English Catholic mother and a Swiss/French Jewish father, I can honestly say I harbor no resentment against the English, French, Catholics or Jews. No comment about the Swiss. <except to say their conduct in WWII is too tawdry for polite conversation> Nonetheless I regard right wing Republicans as a festering sore on the body politic and would trade them for almost anyone if only some country would take the bloody leeches.

[N.B.: I use "naturalized" only in the loosest sense, not the legal sense.]

-Robert

You couldn't tell that that was a joke?

Hey even I knew your original post in this thread was a joke. Why would we think it would be different than any other of your posts?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
It shouldn't matter if they supported the war or not. It comes down to doing what is best for iraq. Plain and simple. If another country can provide a required service for less with the same quality then they should be able to do it. It needs to be less about feeding Bush's ego and more about doing what is right for the people there. The last I heard some of the contracts awarded to US companies haven't done what they were supposed to. They are late and inefficient in thier duties. Which hurts the Iraqi people directly. Months back this could be shown by the inability of the US to fix thier main power plant. It had been months upon months and still they were drawing up a plan. They had used asbestos in the plant. The US based company hadn't done squat. So it comes down to who can fix it faster or better. US companies can't always do the job better, the ones who can should. The companies who can't should be fired. The work done over there needs to be surrounded not by the fact that they didn't support the illegal overthrow of a government, it needs to be about making right for those people quickly. So we can pull out our troops.

Geepers, somebody with some common sense. Sorry, but that would just be to simple.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
It shouldn't matter if they supported the war or not. It comes down to doing what is best for iraq. Plain and simple. If another country can provide a required service for less with the same quality then they should be able to do it. It needs to be less about feeding Bush's ego and more about doing what is right for the people there. The last I heard some of the contracts awarded to US companies haven't done what they were supposed to. They are late and inefficient in thier duties. Which hurts the Iraqi people directly. Months back this could be shown by the inability of the US to fix thier main power plant. It had been months upon months and still they were drawing up a plan. They had used asbestos in the plant. The US based company hadn't done squat. So it comes down to who can fix it faster or better. US companies can't always do the job better, the ones who can should. The companies who can't should be fired. The work done over there needs to be surrounded not by the fact that they didn't support the illegal overthrow of a government, it needs to be about making right for those people quickly. So we can pull out our troops.

Geepers, somebody with some common sense. Sorry, but that would just be to simple.

So you're complaining that it costs America too much money, but you oppose attempts to recoup some of the money? Yeah, that's common sense, MB.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
It shouldn't matter if they supported the war or not. It comes down to doing what is best for iraq. Plain and simple. If another country can provide a required service for less with the same quality then they should be able to do it. It needs to be less about feeding Bush's ego and more about doing what is right for the people there. The last I heard some of the contracts awarded to US companies haven't done what they were supposed to. They are late and inefficient in thier duties. Which hurts the Iraqi people directly. Months back this could be shown by the inability of the US to fix thier main power plant. It had been months upon months and still they were drawing up a plan. They had used asbestos in the plant. The US based company hadn't done squat. So it comes down to who can fix it faster or better. US companies can't always do the job better, the ones who can should. The companies who can't should be fired. The work done over there needs to be surrounded not by the fact that they didn't support the illegal overthrow of a government, it needs to be about making right for those people quickly. So we can pull out our troops.

Geepers, somebody with some common sense. Sorry, but that would just be to simple.

So you're complaining that it costs America too much money, but you oppose attempts to recoup some of the money? Yeah, that's common sense, MB.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
It shouldn't matter if they supported the war or not. It comes down to doing what is best for iraq. Plain and simple. If another country can provide a required service for less with the same quality then they should be able to do it. It needs to be less about feeding Bush's ego and more about doing what is right for the people there. The last I heard some of the contracts awarded to US companies haven't done what they were supposed to. They are late and inefficient in thier duties. Which hurts the Iraqi people directly. Months back this could be shown by the inability of the US to fix thier main power plant. It had been months upon months and still they were drawing up a plan. They had used asbestos in the plant. The US based company hadn't done squat. So it comes down to who can fix it faster or better. US companies can't always do the job better, the ones who can should. The companies who can't should be fired. The work done over there needs to be surrounded not by the fact that they didn't support the illegal overthrow of a government, it needs to be about making right for those people quickly. So we can pull out our troops.

Geepers, somebody with some common sense. Sorry, but that would just be to simple.

So you're complaining that it costs America too much money, but you oppose attempts to recoup some of the money? Yeah, that's common sense, MB.

I was refering to him, not you. You would know common sense if it bit you in the ass. Your comment is out in left field and contains no relationship to anything said.