New Republican Talking Point

[ChumpDumper]

Your argument is that it was more cost effective or a more efficient use of our assets to invade and occupy Iraq than contain Saddam. How much did the containment really cost? I'm sure there's a long-winded blog you could steal the numbers from.

I actually think this discussion over the NIE is good because it shows there are several more reasons regime change in Iraq and, subsequent to that, fighting al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq are a desirable alternative to fighting al Qaeda in Seattle or Michigan or San Antonio.

Nah, it's not like the were ever going to send thousands of terrorists at a time to the US. Twenty did considerable damage.

Which, everyone agrees, may eventually happen but, as the NIE points out, that is less likely if we defeat them in Iraq -- or, if they perceive themselves to be beaten in Iraq.

Will they? The only thing I've really heard the US is trying to do in Iraq is wait around until the Iraqi forces are ready to take over -- not keep fighting until all the terra-ists are dead. So which is it?

[Yonivore]

Your argument is that it was more cost effective or a more efficient use of our assets to invade and occupy Iraq than contain Saddam.

I think you're simplifying the dynamics.

The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled in less than 3 weeks at a cost considerably less than what had been spent in the preceding 12 years. Period. There was no longer a need to contain him and he was no longer an issue. This is something you can't argue.

The resulting insurgency and influx of al Qaeda is a fight we would have had to have had somewhere, whether it was in Iraq or some other place to where the terrorists had chosen to flee when we were invading Afghanistan. The fact remains, al Qaeda was fleeing to Iraq -- some having set up shop in the 90's -- way before we invaded Iraq. So, what better place to stage the fight?

Where should we have engaged them? They weren't staying in Afghanistan.j

Nah, it's not like the were ever going to send thousands of terrorists at a time to the US. Twenty did considerable damage.

You're being naive if you think the ultimate objective of the terrorists is just to continue terrorizing. You do understand that they eventually want a global caliphate and, if they can do it 20 terrorists at a time, they will. But, I doubt that template would have continued working for them with any success.

Eventually, they'll have to attack us here on a grander scale if they wish to subjugate this country...which, is their eventual aim. Just in case you've just pulled your head out of the sand.

Will they? The only thing I've really heard the US is trying to do in Iraq is wait around until the Iraqi forces are ready to take over -- not keep fighting until all the terra-ists are dead. So which is it?

Both. Once the Iraqis have a handle on the insurgency, I think the terrorists will leave for other pastures or, just disperse.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you're simplifying the dynamics.

You're ignoring the real cost of invasion.

The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled in less than 3 weeks at a cost considerably less than what had been spent in the preceding 12 years. Period. There was no longer a need to contain him and he was no longer an issue. This is something you can't argue.

Where are your numbers, Yoni? You are talking about costs and savings, so you obviously have numbers.

The resulting insurgency and influx of al Qaeda is a fight we would have had to have had somewhere, whether it was in Iraq or some other place to where the terrorists had chosen to flee when we were invading Afghanistan. The fact remains, al Qaeda was fleeing to Iraq -- some having set up shop in the 90's -- way before we invaded Iraq. So, what better place to stage the fight?

Revisionist bull at its finest. That line of logic necessitates a prediction of the large-scale insurgency.

You made no such prediction because Rummy didn't and the blogs you steal from didn't. So don't try to act like it was the plan all along.

[ChumpDumper]

You're being naive if you think the ultimate objective of the terrorists is just to continue terrorizing.

You're being naive if you think they'll just stop.

Eventually, they'll have to attack us here on a grander scale if they wish to subjugate this country...which, is their eventual aim.

But, they'll give up if we "win" in iraq. Make up your mind.

[Yonivore]

You're being naive if you think they'll just stop.

They may have no choice. Did you even read the entire NIE? Iraqis aren't interested in Shari'a law and I doubt the terrorist will be able to ins ute it there. Eventually, they will be reduced to a point where they are at odds with the insurgency over this point and, when that happens, along with Iraq getting a handle on the insurgency, either by getting the factions to join the political process (which has, to some extent, already happened) or by defeating them militarily, the terrorists will be unwelcome there. After all, for the most part, they've been killing innocent Iraqi civilians and police officers...not U.S. Soldiers.

But, they'll give up if we "win" in iraq. Make up your mind.

Where'd I say they'd give up? I believe it has been expressed in the NIE that if they lose in Iraq it will be a lot harder for them to recruit Jihadis for the cause. I don't think they'll ever give up.

But, I don't think white supremists will ever give up on their cause either.

It's a matter of marginalizing them, stablizing the region, and containing outbreaks.

[ChumpDumper]

They may have no choice. Did you even read the entire NIE?

No and neither did you, doofus. It's classified.

Iraqis aren't interested in Shari'a law and I doubt the terrorist will be able to ins ute it there. Eventually, they will be reduced to a point where they are at odds with the insurgency over this point and, when that happens, along with Iraq getting a handle on the insurgency, either by getting the factions to join the political process (which has, to some extent, already happened) or by defeating them militarily, the terrorists will be unwelcome there.

And then when we leave and the ethnic cleansing begins. They'll be back, or coming in for the first time since it's simply stupid to think every single terrorist is active in Iraq at this moment.

[Yonivore]

No and neither did you, doofus. It's classified.

Well, I guess you've run out of arguments and proceded to name-calling. Always good in an argument.

The unclassified part was clear on this.

And then when we leave and the ethnic cleansing begins. They'll be back, or coming in for the first time since it's simply stupid to think every single terrorist is active in Iraq at this moment.

They? Who is they? And, why would they be interested in Iraq once we leave?

Are you ever optimistic about the future?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I guess you've run out of arguments and proceded to name-calling. Always good in an argument.

You asked if I read the entire NIE. It was a question only a doofus would make. I was being kind.

They? Who is they?

I'll type it slowly so you might get it.

The

ter

ror

ists.

And, why would they be interested in Iraq once we leave?

Why wouldn't they?

Are you ever optimistic about the future?

Not the near future in this area, no. You'd have to ask me about some other place.

[Yonivore]

You asked if I read the entire NIE. It was a question only a doofus would make. I was being kind.

Actually, it was a mistake. I meant the unclassified portions, but, fine.

I'll type it slowly so you might get it. The

ter

ror

ists.

That'd be pretty stupid, I think. They'd be unwelcome by everyone -- since there'd no longer be a common enemy and the insurgency would have been presumably pacified.

Why wouldn't they?

Why would they? The only reason they fled there in the first place was because Saddam Hussein allowed it. With him out of power and a decidedly anti-Saddam Hussein government in power, I doubt they'd find much safe haven anywhere.

Not the near future in this area, no. You'd have to ask me about some other place.

Sorry I asked. I wasn't really that interested.

[ChumpDumper]

That'd be pretty stupid, I think. They'd be unwelcome by everyone -- since there'd no longer be a common enemy and the insurgency would have been presumably pacified.

Nah, there's always an enemy. The big violence after we leave will be Shiite on Sunni. Book it.

Why would they?

It's an unstable muslim country.

The only reason they fled there in the first place was because Saddam Hussein allowed it.

I won't pretend Saddam was in complete control of his entire country after the Gulf War. Ok.

With him out of power and a decidedly anti-Saddam Hussein government in power, I doubt they'd find much safe haven anywhere.

You're assuming the government will be a strong centralized one. I assume the government ultimately won't be able to control the guys with the guns since the only thing preventing a genocide now is the presence of US troops. Many individuals and groups are just waiting until we leave because they know we will someday.

[Yonivore]

Nah, there's always an enemy. The big violence after we leave will be Shiite on Sunni. Book it.

You book it. I'm not a betting man.

It's an unstable muslim country.

Well, if we meet our objective, it won't be when we leave.

I won't pretend Saddam was in complete control of his entire country after the Gulf War. Ok.

He was in complete control of Baghdad where other terrorists had already taken up residence and of Salmon Pak where al Qaeda was being trained. I won't pretend Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime didn't have a relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, okay? Okay.

You're assuming the government will be a strong centralized one. I assume the government ultimately won't be able to control the guys with the guns since the only thing preventing a genocide now is the presence of US troops. Many individuals and groups are just waiting until we leave because they know we will someday.

No, I'm assuming we won't leave until the country is stable and able to provide for it's own security. Hey, we're still in Germany 60 years after we pacified it. What's to say we won't keep a few bases in or near Iraq to make sure they remain stable?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if we meet our objective, it won't be when we leave.

If our objective is the Iraqization of the conflict, it won't have to be.

Hey, we're still in Germany 60 years after we pacified it.

You're saying we'll be in Iraq for sixty years?

What's to say we won't keep a few bases in or near Iraq to make sure they remain stable?

We'll keep a base in Kurdistan because it will be stable. The base won't make it stable.

[Yonivore]

If our objective is the Iraqization of the conflict, it won't have to be.

Again, your policy initiatives won't gain any traction in the SpursTalk.com forum. Obviously, those who propose this solution have been voted down.

You're saying we'll be in Iraq for sixty years?

Maybe. But, probably not. I have no idea. I don't think anyone knew we'd be in Germany for 60 years.

We'll keep a base in Kurdistan because it will be stable. The base won't make it stable.

Whatever it takes.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, your policy initiatives won't gain any traction in the SpursTalk.com forum. Obviously, those who propose this solution have been voted down.

It's not my policy. It's Bush's.

Maybe. But, probably not.

Decisive.

Whatever it takes.

Remember those words.

[xrayzebra]

You're ignoring the real cost of invasion.Where are your numbers, Yoni? You are talking about costs and savings, so you obviously have numbers.Revisionist bull at its finest. That line of logic necessitates a prediction of the large-scale insurgency.

You made no such prediction because Rummy didn't and the blogs you steal from didn't. So don't try to act like it was the plan all along.

Where are you numbers dummy. Numbers in war mean nothing. We had how
many people in uniform during the WWII, about 7 million or was it 9 million. We
spent how much in terms of wealth in today's dollars?

How bout you give us some numbers. You cant because you cant. No one
can. All you can do is throw up walls and false arguments. The real questions are: do we want to win? do we have the resources to win?
what did Saddam do with his WMD, not if he had them. We know he had
them, what did he do with them. It is an important question.

Go back under you rock and let the men do the heavy lifting for you.

[ChumpDumper]

How bout you give us some numbers.

I wasn't the one crowing about the savings gained from invasion and occupation.

You cant because you cant. No one can.

I can find all kinds of numbers about what the invasion and occupation has cost. The question was can numbers be found for the cost of containing Saddam previously. I can't think of any special provisions outside the regular budget being made, can you?

The real questions are: do we want to win? do we have the resources to win?

Sure we have the resources, or we can get them. The question is are we really willing to commit those resources?

what did Saddam do with his WMD, not if he had them. We know he had them, what did he do with them. It is an important question.

Are we safer now that we know nothing about them?

Go back under you rock and let the men do the heavy lifting for you.

Sorry I got you all riled up with questions you can't answer. go take a nap. You're overtired.

[spurster]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.

[valluco]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.

E- ing-xactly.

[101A]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.

Attempting to manipulate public opinion was happening before the Federalist Papers. Orwell was no more a predicter of the future of mankind than Marx.

Atlas Shrugged is much more politically astute.

[ChumpDumper]

How bout you give us some numbers. You cant because you cant. No one can.

WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat.

The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars, according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service completed last week.

The e in operating costs -- including a 20 percent increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission now costs about $370 million a week -- comes even though troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...rly_2b_a_week/

Would the numbers be easier to understand if I typed them out with all the zeros?

[Yonivore]

WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat.

The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars, according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service completed last week.

The e in operating costs -- including a 20 percent increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission now costs about $370 million a week -- comes even though troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...rly_2b_a_week/

Would the numbers be easier to understand if I typed them out with all the zeros?

What did the 3 week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athis regime cost. Because that was my point...if you'll look back.

The resulting insurgency and war with terrorists is something I believe we would have had to fight anyway...if not in Iraq, in some other god-forsaken place.

Tell me if the three week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime cost more than the 12 years of maintaining troops in Arabia and patrolling the no-flyzone as well as trying to infiltrate the regime, force him to comply with UNSC Resolutions, etc...

[ChumpDumper]

What did the 3 week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athis regime cost. Because that was my point...if you'll look back.

And it was ridiculous to pretend that was the only cost then too. That was my point.

The resulting insurgency and war with terrorists is something I believe we would have had to fight anyway...if not in Iraq, in some other god-forsaken place.

You didn't think it would happen in Iraq.

Tell me if the three week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime cost more than the 12 years of maintaining troops in Arabia and patrolling the no-flyzone as well as trying to infiltrate the regime, force him to comply with UNSC Resolutions, etc...

Why should I act like those three weeks occurred in a vacuum? The cost of occupation is a direct result of the "cheap" invasion. One doesn't happen without the other.

Applying current cost ratios for each conflict to the total, let's say the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost about $400,000,000,000. What's your number for the 12 years before the invasion?

[Yonivore]

And it was ridiculous to pretend that was the only cost then too. That was my point.

That doesn't answer the question.

You didn't think it would happen in Iraq.

But it did and, who's to say that if it hadn't happened in Iraq it wouldn't be happening in a much more costly manner (in terms of both human and economic costs) in a much more hostile environment?

Why should I act like those three weeks occurred in a vacuum? The cost of occupation is a direct result of the "cheap" invasion. One doesn't happen without the other.

We disagree over the characterization of what happened after the invasion. I believe what has occurred in Iraq after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein would have happened elsewhere -- possibly even in Iraq itself but, later on when even you realized that's to where the terrorists were fleeing to set up shop after we invaded Afghanistan -- and, who knows what the cost of that would have been?

Applying current cost ratios for each conflict to the total, let's say the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost about $400,000,000,000. What's your number for the 12 years before the invasion?

Again, that's not the argument I'm making. I think the invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime is one action and the resulting insurgency (joined by terrorists) is a completely separate action.

And, if you consider that we'd be having this same war sometime in the future, possibly even in Iraq, because, well, the terrorists weren't just going to go away if they didn't go to Iraq, then you can't compare what's gone on in Iraq since April '03 - for comparative purposes - to what took place in the preceding 12 years.

I know you want to but, you have to ask yourself this question. If we had restricted our combat operations to Afghanistan what was to become of the large numbers of terrorists that were fleeing to Iraq?

Would they have just retired there and given up on their terrorist ways?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't answer the question.

Then ask a relevant question.

But it did and, who's to say that if it hadn't happened in Iraq it wouldn't be happening in a much more costly manner (in terms of both human and economic costs) in a much more hostile environment?

Which other countries were we invading?

We disagree over the characterization of what happened after the invasion. I believe what has occurred in Iraq after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein would have happened elsewhere

I believed something like that would happen in Iraq. And it did. You can't tell me you had half a trillion dollars earmarked to fight someone else's civil war three years ago. It's complete bull .

Again, that's not the argument I'm making. I think the invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime is one action and the resulting insurgency (joined by terrorists) is a completely separate action.

And it's complete bull . It's EXACTLY the reason Saddam wasn't removed after the Gulf War and you know it. One happened because of the other and they can't be seperated for your convenience.

I know you want to but, you have to ask yourself this question. If we had restricted our combat operations to Afghanistan what was to become of the large numbers of terrorists that were fleeing to Iraq?

You keep talking about these huge numbers, but never actually use numbers. How many?

Would they have just retired there and given up on their terrorist ways?

That's your interpretation of the NIE for Iraq now, so why not then for Afghanistan? They had their asses handed to them and pretty much the entire world was working against them or disowning them -- including Iran if you care to remember.