Interesting Article about Money Spent in Iraq

[Guest]

This was a recent article about how our money is being spent in Iraq. http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080428/twl-iraq-reconstruction-38359fb.html

And McCain wants us to stay there 100 years?

[Guest]

This was a recent article about how our money is being spent in Iraq. http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080428/twl-iraq-reconstruction-38359fb.html

And McCain wants us to stay there 100 years?




What an ignorant statement. But then, I've come to expect as much.

[Guest]

Muncle,
I don't want to offend anybody but...
name calling and put downs have no place on this blog.
Did you read the article? I don't think my taxes have been well spent.
By the way, Lil Dancer is an engineer and far from ignorant. I think you owe her an apology.

She has a right to her opinion and a right to share it on this blog without a put down.

[Guest]

"The audit released Sunday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, provides the latest snapshot of an uneven reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. It also comes as several lawmakers have said they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction."

"The report paints a depressing picture of money being poured into failed Iraq reconstruction projects _ contractors are killed, projects are blown up just before being completed, or the contractor just stops doing the work."

I don't want our tax money, not one cent more, going to this abomination. McCain did say he doesn't care if it takes 100 years. Well let him pay for it then. And you can pitch in too Uncle Muncle.

[Guest]

I don't really care what her IQ is and I did not call her any names. However, she did say "And McCain wants us to stay there 100 years?" And that is an ignorant statement.

I'm not going to get into parsing statements, but that is NOT what McCain said. It was a purposeful misinterpretation of what was said and what has been explained ad nauseum.

There are a few posters from whom I've come to expect such tripe. She happens to be one of them. But she's entitled to do so. More power to her.

[Guest]

Dear Muncle, I think we are all disheartened and frustrated by the Iraq debacle. The anger and frustration cause us to vent. Maybe it's not all fair....but most things in life aren't.
I do worry that McCain will drag us into Iran.

[Guest]

Oh my, my, my don't we have a double standard. Clinton and Obama have to explain away every nuance and slip of the tongue ad nauseum, but not St. McCain? He will have a lot of explaining to do shortly.

It's always the same. Disagree with a Republican and you're either ignorant, uninformed or un-American. That song has been sung way too many times.

[Guest]

Chelsea,
:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:

[Guest]

"The audit released Sunday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, provides the latest snapshot of an uneven reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion. It also comes as several lawmakers have said they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction."

"The report paints a depressing picture of money being poured into failed Iraq reconstruction projects _ contractors are killed, projects are blown up just before being completed, or the contractor just stops doing the work."

I don't want our tax money, not one cent more, going to this abomination. McCain did say he doesn't care if it takes 100 years. Well let him pay for it then. And you can pitch in too Uncle Muncle.

[Guest]

Sam,
:agree: :agree: :agree:

[Guest]

John McCain's own words on January 3 regarding the number of years U.S. troops would stay in Iraq: "Maybe a hundred." Then on Face the Nation on January 6, McCain told Bob Schieffer, "I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years."

My point in the previous post was, who is going to pay for all this, and is the money well spent. If Muncle considers that "tripe", he is certainly entitled to his opinion. I think most of us on this forum consider the war and its associated economic issues to be a little more important than that.

[Guest]

I fear Senator McCain is in denial regarding the consequences of the Iraq war.

[Guest]

Each of the candidates portray their view of the war in a direction that most affects their electability.
One of them will find what can really be done or not or undone or not ONLY when sitting as President with full access to the pertinent knowledge that is not available to the public or the media.

Until they sit in that chair of responsibility, they will say what ever they think will get them elected......they are politicians first, eh?

BTK

[Guest]

Well, Billie..As usual, you nailed it.

[Guest]

I understand what McCain meant once he had a chance to explain them. His view is that we Americans won't care if our troops are there but not fighting. That is, have the Iraqis doing the policing, etc. and we be there as backup. He uses Korea, Germany and a few other locales as examples, stating that so long as no American blood is shed, it should be okay with Americans. Unfortunately, I don't agree with him.

In Korea, those at the DMZ were receiving combat pay to at least the year 2000, possibly longer (I know they don't get it now). American blood was spilled in Korea long after the "official" war ended in 1953. Air Force pilots were offered some pretty hefty incentives, including an additional $300/month, to re-enlist for another tour in Korea in 2005. Most Americans didn't know (and still don't) that their young men were being put in the line of danger there long after the war ended. I wonder how many would have protested had they known the facts? I sincerely hope Iraq doesn't become another Korea, no matter what McCain's idealistic idea of us being there in the future might be.

Germany was a different situation. Once the peace treaty had been signed, the fighting stopped. Germans were happy to have the war end.

I believe Iraq would be more in the vein of Korea -- at the very least, there would be spots that would be war zones as long as Americans were there. Odds are that all of Iraq would always be a war zone and American blood would be shed there so long as we're a military presence there.

To me, McCain's statements that Americans won't care that troops be in Iraq for 100 years are naive at best, ingeniuous at worst.

[Guest]

The article is about how our money is being spent.

[Guest]

Red, I think you meant "disingenuous at worst".





I understand what McCain meant once he had a chance to explain them. His view is that we Americans won't care if our troops are there but not fighting. That is, have the Iraqis doing the policing, etc. and we be there as backup. He uses Korea, Germany and a few other locales as examples, stating that so long as no American blood is shed, it should be okay with Americans. Unfortunately, I don't agree with him.

In Korea, those at the DMZ were receiving combat pay to at least the year 2000, possibly longer (I know they don't get it now). American blood was spilled in Korea long after the "official" war ended in 1953. Air Force pilots were offered some pretty hefty incentives, including an additional $300/month, to re-enlist for another tour in Korea in 2005. Most Americans didn't know (and still don't) that their young men were being put in the line of danger there long after the war ended. I wonder how many would have protested had they known the facts? I sincerely hope Iraq doesn't become another Korea, no matter what McCain's idealistic idea of us being there in the future might be.

Germany was a different situation. Once the peace treaty had been signed, the fighting stopped. Germans were happy to have the war end.

I believe Iraq would be more in the vein of Korea -- at the very least, there would be spots that would be war zones as long as Americans were there. Odds are that all of Iraq would always be a war zone and American blood would be shed there so long as we're a military presence there.

To me, McCain's statements that Americans won't care that troops be in Iraq for 100 years are naive at best, ingeniuous at worst.

[Guest]

What is interesting is that US Forces have been in Japan and Germany now for over 60 years, and in South Korea for over 50 years - with no end in sight.

Why are these situations then tolerated, but a comment that US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan may last several decades such a surprise?

If we learned one thing from WWI, it was that dumping a location where foes remain canl be extremely costly downstream. I'm not keen on a long-term presence in the Mideast at all, but also am not sure whether the risks for the folk in year 2030 are worth the gamble to pack the tent and exit stage-west.

So, if there should not be a long-term presence in Iraq/Afghanistan, what should be done differently than what happened after WWI? In other words, where's the PLAN, complete with the risk assessments?

As far as the money goes, are we getting shafted? Probably! War always brings profiteers, clear back to the Revolution. War always brings waste - too much going on with too little oversight. There never has been a "well-managed, fiscally-responsible" war - too many people with too many interests coupled with too much confusion. It's just one of those facts of existence....

[Guest]

Steve,
I know what you meant but there is no comparison between Iraq and those other countries!!!
Were we alone in a preemption invasion in those countries? Did we wipe out their governments
and dissolve their military? Are our taxdollars and soldiers the only ones holding up their governments?
I don't want to argue . This was an invasion started by our Adminstration without world support and there is plenty of evidence that there is no end in sight.!!! The article was about how a great deal of money is being spent so poorly with no oversight. We are in the middle of a civil war. It's a mess.
We have military bases all over the world. That's not the point. The point in this article was- in Iraq-our money is being stolen...misspent with no end in sight.

[Guest]

A resounding AMEN to that. :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: and I'm >:( >:( >:(




Steve,
I know what you meant but there is no comparison between Iraq and those other countries!!!
Were we alone in a preemption invasion in those countries? Did we wipe out their governments
and dissolve their military? Are our taxdollars and soldiers the only ones holding up their governments?
I don't want to argue . This was an invasion started by our Adminstration without world support and there is plenty of evidence that there is no end in sight.!!! The article was about how a great deal of money is being spent so poorly with no oversight. We are in the middle of a civil war. It's a mess.
We have military bases all over the world. That's not the point. The point in this article was- in Iraq-our money is being stolen...misspent with no end in sight.

[Guest]

Great post, Mcelheny. You hit the nail on the head!

[Guest]

Steve,
I know what you meant but there is no comparison between Iraq and those other countries!!!
Were we alone in a preemption invasion in those countries? Did we wipe out their governments
and dissolve their military? Are our taxdollars and soldiers the only ones holding up their governments?
I don't want to argue . This was an invasion started by our Adminstration without world support and there is plenty of evidence that there is no end in sight.!!! The article was about how a great deal of money is being spent so poorly with no oversight. We are in the middle of a civil war. It's a mess.
We have military bases all over the world. That's not the point. The point in this article was- in Iraq-our money is being stolen...misspent with no end in sight.



Suggest you re-read my post. You may find that we are in agreement that war is wasteful - takes a lot of money and resources, and there never has or ever will be one that will be financially tracked with any level of accuracy. That's just the way it is.

This string started with two points: 1) the financial aspect of this war is a mess and there is little to know oversight on the cash faucet,; and 2) Mccain was referenced as saying this is a 100-year effort.

We seem to all agree in principle on Point #1.

Point #2 is a political jab at the Republican candidate, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, facts are facts, and the present is the present. We can lament about the past and the what and how this war started, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists in the present. So, the attention should turn to what should and will happen in the near and distant future.

As far as world opinion is concerned - Phooey! They are quick to seek handouts and bailouts - financially and militarily - and short on everything else. The second most worthless thing on this planet, IMHO, is the United Nations - and I rate it second only because statistically there may be something that rates more to the negative. It's proven to be nothing more than the playground of the diplomatically elite by virtue of its location. Move the monstrosity to Reykjavík, Iceland (a perfectly neutral site!) and see how many nations participate!

We have military bases around the world for two reasons: 1) because we beat certain countries at a war and found ourselves rebuilding the places economically and politically; and 2) they provide convenient staging areas for the inevitable next deployment.

Did we wipe out the Japanese and German governments and disband their military? Yep!

There are very few things that I'm really sure of, but one of them is that I can't rewrite history and change the past. It is what it is. The future is another matter altogether, and whether one considers the current situation as a mess or not, it is what it is, and won't heal itself. So, what's do we do next that will be productive and assure national security?

[Guest]

Sorry Steve,
I have too much to do to waste my time arguing with you. Have a good day.

[Guest]

As far as world opinion is concerned - Phooey! They are quick to seek handouts and bailouts - financially and militarily - and short on everything else. The second most worthless thing on this planet, IMHO, is the United Nations - and I rate it second only because statistically there may be something that rates more to the negative. It's proven to be nothing more than the playground of the diplomatically elite by virtue of its location. Move the monstrosity to Reykjavík, Iceland (a perfectly neutral site!) and see how many nations participate!



With all due respect Steve, I think sometimes you look at America as how it used to be, maybe how you want it to be and ignore the way it's looked at now. We are not in the position of giving handouts or bailouts. Heck we can't even get the aftermath of Katrina settled. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow to not see us as the shining beacon we once were. And yes, I'm going to blame the last, most destructive administration. I know Bill Clinton was loved and welcomed throughout the world. I know that Georg W. Bush is not. It's that simple. Like it or not, that's the reality. Do you really think anyone of us wants our country or president to be hated? No! We really have to relearn diplomacy. We are stretched too thin, our economy is weak. We need an INTELLIGENT leader and not just a blowhard spewing more bravado. We do not, I repeat do not need a continuance of the last 8 years.

[Guest]

I wonder why in the last 3 elections held in European countries (Germany, France and Italy), that the elected one was a Bush supporter?????

[Guest]

With all due respect Steve, I think sometimes you look at America as how it used to be, maybe how you want it to be and ignore the way it's looked at now. We are not in the position of giving handouts or bailouts. Heck we can't even get the aftermath of Katrina settled. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow to not see us as the shining beacon we once were. And yes, I'm going to blame the last, most destructive administration. I know Bill Clinton was loved and welcomed throughout the world. I know that Georg W. Bush is not. It's that simple. Like it or not, that's the reality. Do you really think anyone of us wants our country or president to be hated? No! We really have to relearn diplomacy. We are stretched too thin, our economy is weak. We need an INTELLIGENT leader and not just a blowhard spewing more bravado. We do not, I repeat do not need a continuance of the last 8 years.



How America is looked at, to me the only opinions that matter are of its citizenry. During the last 100 years I can't think of a single circumstance where any country in the world actually gave a hoot whether we lived or died, as long as the foreign aid money kept coming and we remain willing to expend our resources to their betterment. I'm not a "shining beacon" type - and would rather have the light out and let the rest of the world learn to coexist on its own.

I agree with you that the US is stretched too thin. The economy IS weak. The "why" bothers me - whether it's because we have intellectualized ourselves to think that we can be an "information" society and transition ourselves from agroindustrial and manufacturing to only a data broker, or it is something intentionally occurring within the Department of Commerce? The negative balance-of-payments is brutal, and its much worse on manufactured goods than it is on energy. Who's to blame for that? My first guess is the consumer with a 'buy cheap" philsophy!

I too would like a change, but not only from the last 8 years, but from the last 16. I will not claim that Bill Clilnton was a bad or evil President, but he wasn't the Second Messiah either. His administration had its fair share of scandals, errors, misjudgments and controversy. George Bush's administration is equal to not being the perfect one. The next will also have the fallibility of being "human." Now if we could only flush out the entire Congress at the same time and start anew - ridding us of all the "professional Senators and Congresspersons" who spend decades in office and whose only real concern is getting re-elected ad infinitum!!!

That would be REAL CHANGE!

...And a free-flow of ideas and opinions is not "arguing." It's only an argument when one holds steadfast to a point of view without any openmindness and refuses to meld new information with old. I'm appreciative to all who are willing to share their ideas, opinions and viewpoints - it helps me understand others better and learn more overall. I will never claim to always be "right" as I probably make more mistakes than anyone I know, and actually enjoy when a viewpoint I have is shown to be out of kilter. That's "education" in its truest sense.

[Guest]

I wonder why in the last 3 elections held in European countries (Germany, France and Italy), that the elected one was a Bush supporter?????

What??? They never showed any support. How many troops did they send Bush to help fight in Iraq. None!!!!

[Guest]

The US is a country that leaders from small countries from Europe have to be polite to because we are so big.

[Guest]

SteveZ...you are so cool!!!!!!!!!! Excellent post.





How America is looked at, to me the only opinions that matter are of its citizenry. During the last 100 years I can't think of a single circumstance where any country in the world actually gave a hoot whether we lived or died, as long as the foreign aid money kept coming and we remain willing to expend our resources to their betterment. I'm not a "shining beacon" type - and would rather have the light out and let the rest of the world learn to coexist on its own.

I agree with you that the US is stretched too thin. The economy IS weak. The "why" bothers me - whether it's because we have intellectualized ourselves to think that we can be an "information" society and transition ourselves from agroindustrial and manufacturing to only a data broker, or it is something intentionally occurring within the Department of Commerce? The negative balance-of-payments is brutal, and its much worse on manufactured goods than it is on energy. Who's to blame for that? My first guess is the consumer with a 'buy cheap" philsophy!

I too would like a change, but not only from the last 8 years, but from the last 16. I will not claim that Bill Clilnton was a bad or evil President, but he wasn't the Second Messiah either. His administration had its fair share of scandals, errors, misjudgments and controversy. George Bush's administration is equal to not being the perfect one. The next will also have the fallibility of being "human." Now if we could only flush out the entire Congress at the same time and start anew - ridding us of all the "professional Senators and Congresspersons" who spend decades in office and whose only real concern is getting re-elected ad infinitum!!!

That would be REAL CHANGE!

...And a free-flow of ideas and opinions is not "arguing." It's only an argument when one holds steadfast to a point of view without any openmindness and refuses to meld new information with old. I'm appreciative to all who are willing to share their ideas, opinions and viewpoints - it helps me understand others better and learn more overall. I will never claim to always be "right" as I probably make more mistakes than anyone I know, and actually enjoy when a viewpoint I have is shown to be out of kilter. That's "education" in its truest sense.

[Guest]

Steve Z I too agree with your last post. However, I do want America to be a shining beacon of light and that doesn't mean leaving the rest of the world in the dark. It means showing the world a better way they can live, in a democracy, but without forcing it upon them. I'm an idealist. I have voted for either party depending on who made the most sense to me. It's just that I simply do not see that anything will change with McCain. There is not even the hope of change. I respect him for his war record and it's it. I don't see him leading this county onto a path of healing.

[Guest]

Steve Z I too agree with your last post. However, I do want America to be a shining beacon of light and that doesn't mean leaving the rest of the world in the dark. It means showing the world a better way they can live, in a democracy, but without forcing it upon them. I'm an idealist. I have voted for either party depending on who made the most sense to me. It's just that I simply do not see that anything will change with McCain. There is not even the hope of change. I respect him for his war record and it's it. I don't see him leading this county onto a path of healing.


...And I respect your opinion and your reasons. I just honestly haven't made up my mind yet, and will hold on a decision until I pull the lever, punch the card or whatever the system du jour is. I don't want to pin my hopes on anyone right now, as there really is no gain to do so.

[Guest]

chelsea24 if you ever run for any office -- you have my vote