Why Obama Giving The Order To Kill Bin Laden Was Significant

Al-Maliki did not want the USA there. They (the Iraqi people) celebrated when we left. Getting out of Iraq was one campaign promise that Obama kept. We had been spending over 20 billion per month in Iraq. Bush43 should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. What did we accomplish over there? Saddam was removed from power and we found WMD's that the USA had designed and sold to them back in the 1980's. Liberating Mosul will not be more costly than the 20 billion per month we were spending over there. Also, our troops will not have a combat role. Originally Posted by flghtr65

The simple fact that we had to send our forces BACK to Iraq less than 3 years after pulling them out PROVES it was a dumb mistake for us to have withdrawn 100% in 2011! Obama's actions speak louder than your denials. We look stupid to everyone – except for partisan hacks like you who will never own up to Odumbo's mistakes.

And you should know better than to toss out false, inflated numbers at me. We never spent anywhere near $20 billion a month in Iraq. Even at the 2006-2007 peak, the cost was barely half that:



Maintaining a residual force (e.g. 10,000 troops, compared with a peak of 170,000) in Iraq would have cost less than $1 billion a month – an amount well worth spending to keep ISIS out of Anbar. Those miscreants should never have been allowed to set foot in Mosul. Kicking them out will be a bloody and costly clusterfuck. We've already put 5,000 US military personnel back into Iraq. The real number is probably higher but Obama is concealing it. And if you think none of them have combat roles, talk to the Special Ops guys who carry out the missions. What kind of schizoid Commander-in-Chief sends our best-trained troops over to Iraq and tells them their mission is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS - but don't engage in any combat?

I think we'd have been much better off simply leaving Iraq alone. But that's just me.

Obaminable wants to be able to claim he ended the wars and didn't start any up on his watch, and if avoiding another flare up into which he must insert U.S. troops to address the problem by lying about the seriousness of the situation, then he'll do it just to be able to say "he ended the wars and didn't start any up on his watch."

Just like he lied about health care coverage so he could claim he boosted the number of persons on health care during his watch, even if the "boost" is from taxpayer money being given to insurance companies and those "newly insured" who actually had insurance coverage, but lost it when insurance companies dropped out and/or premiums got so high their employers couldn't afford it any longer!

It's all about Obaminable .... and the next President can deal with it.

The simple fact that we had to send our forces BACK to Iraq less than 3 years after pulling them out PROVES it was a dumb mistake for us to have withdrawn 100% in 2011! Obama's actions speak louder than your denials. We look stupid to everyone – except for partisan hacks like you who will never own up to Odumbo's mistakes.

And you should know better than to toss out false, inflated numbers at me. We never spent anywhere near $20 billion a month in Iraq. Even at the 2006-2007 peak, the cost was barely half that:



Maintaining a residual force (e.g. 10,000 troops, compared with a peak of 170,000) in Iraq would have cost less than $1 billion a month – an amount well worth spending to keep ISIS out of Anbar. Those miscreants should never have been allowed to set foot in Mosul. Kicking them out will be a bloody and costly clusterfuck. We've already put 5,000 US military personnel back into Iraq. The real number is probably higher but Obama is concealing it. And if you think none of them have combat roles, talk to the Special Ops guys who carry out the missions. What kind of schizoid Commander-in-Chief sends our best-trained troops over to Iraq and tells them their mission is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS - but don't engage in any combat? Originally Posted by lustylad

Trouble reading column graphs lad? The peak would be year 2008 for almost $ 150 billion. That is certainly more than 10 billion per month. The 801 billion dollar estimate is a little low. A study by Reuters gives a much higher number of 2 Trillion. Your number doesn't include things like the interest paid to finance the war. This study was done in 2013. Your estimate is from 2010.

From the link:

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...92D0PG20130314

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said. Originally Posted by flghtr65

That's why I believe Bush Sr. should have finished the job.

Good start, but no finish.



Rebuild and repay with the oil.

Trouble reading column graphs lad? The peak would be year 2008 for almost $ 150 billion. That is certainly more than 10 billion per month. The 801 billion dollar estimate is a little low. A study by Reuters gives a much higher number of 2 Trillion. Your number doesn't include things like the interest paid to finance the war. This study was done in 2013. Your estimate is from 2010.

From the link:

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...92D0PG20130314 Originally Posted by flghtr65

You are the dishonest hack who has trouble reading graphs. I said even at the peak the actual number was "barely half" the $20 Bn. a month you cited - and my graph confirms this! Either cite a credible source for your higher number or admit you're a lying hack!

And the proper methodology for tallying cost is to look at actual DOD expenditures. Adding estimates of future VA benefits and interest is an arbitrary and flaky attempt to inflate the total. You can make a case against any war without being intellectually dishonest.

And the proper methodology for tallying cost is to look at actual DOD expenditures. Adding estimates of future VA benefits and interest is an arbitrary and flaky attempt to inflate the total. You can make a case against any war without being intellectually dishonest. Originally Posted by lustylad

Actually the opponents of the Iraq invasion lump into the losses the results of the following "occupation" .... so they can also lump in the costs of the following "occupation" .... and then one must "peel away" the expenditures of the DOD for "other matters" that were not directly attributable to Iraq.

To debate the decision making to invade one must separate out the following decision to occupy ... for instance .. Bush Sr didn't "occupy" territory after the Iraq forces were forced back into their country.

Either cite a credible source for your higher number or admit you're a lying hack!

And the proper methodology for tallying cost is to look at actual DOD expenditures. Adding estimates of future VA benefits and interest is an arbitrary and flaky attempt to inflate the total. You can make a case against any war without being intellectually dishonest. Originally Posted by lustylad

Reuters is not credible? Your estimates are 6 years old. Academics aren't credible? You don't believe in advanced degrees?

Calculating the interest on the principal that was borrowed to finance the war is not arbitrary.

From the Reuters link:

The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Of course you want to use a lower number, you 're Bush worshiper.

. And if you think none of them have combat roles, talk to the Special Ops guys who carry out the missions. What kind of schizoid Commander-in-Chief sends our best-trained troops over to Iraq and tells them their mission is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS - but don't engage in any combat? Originally Posted by lustylad

When Fallajah was captured the coalition forces were on the front line. Our role is mostly giving advice. From the Fallajah link.


On 26 June, Iraqi forces recaptured the rest of Fallujah, with an Iraqi commander stating that the entire city was under Iraqi control and declared the operation was over

Reuters is not credible? Your estimates are 6 years old. Academics aren't credible? You don't believe in advanced degrees?

Calculating the interest on the principal that was borrowed to finance the war is not arbitrary.

From the Reuters link:

The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Of course you want to use a lower number, you 're Bush worshiper. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Reuters simply reported on a "study" for which no link is provided. Nowhere in the Reuters piece does it say anything about the US spending $20 bn. a month in Iraq. So I repeat what I said earlier – either cite a credible source for your claim that we ever spent $20 bn. a month on the Iraq war or admit you're a lying hack!

If you made up that number, just say so.

And yes, it is complete bullshit to add 40 years of interest to the “costs” of that war or any other war. In FY 2007 the federal government spent $2,729 billion and ran a deficit of $161 billion. Less than 5% of total federal outlays went to the Iraq war. That means over 95% went for other categories such as education, healthcare and welfare. If I disapproved of any of those other categories, I could just as logically attribute the entire 2007 deficit to them and say the cost of providing each program I objected to was much higher than reported - because we need to add 40 years of compounded interest to the original amount! See how that works, flighty?

I won't even go into the absurdity of forecasting Treasury borrowing rates over the next FOUR DECADES! Any academic who engages in such a frivolous and arbitrary exercise (including Joe Stiglitz) deserves unmitigated scorn and derision!

Oh, and stop whining about my chart being 6 years old. Here is a newer one showing actual (not estimated) spending. If you think Iraq was such a rabbit hole, why don't you complain about the money we have poured into Afghanistan under Obama? It's almost as much as Bush spent in Iraq.



Don't bother replying, flighty, unless you come up with a source or an explanation for your phony $20 bn. a month figure.

^^^^ .. He is a phony. What else can he produce, but phony propaganda.

^^^^ .. He is a phony. What else can he produce, but phony propaganda. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1


I would sooner accept a $3 bill than anything flighty says.

I think we'd have been much better off simply leaving Iraq alone. But that's just me. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

me too...

I think we'd have been much better off simply leaving Iraq alone. But that's just me. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Monday morning quarterbacking is always genius at work.

Half the football teams who played this past weekend are mulling over what "could have been" if "only we had done this or that"!

The fast food mentality of our society is not fit for protracted commitments at anything ... even personal relationships. Everything from hamburgers to automobiles have a short shelf life for the average American. Going in was not the bad part. Staying was.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/c...FQwKaQodK3EKKA

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/