Where's the money for the war coming from? Your tax cut!

[Spinaroonie]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3773410.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a setback Friday for President Bush, the Senate voted 52-47 to take $100 billion from his proposed tax cut over the next 10 years to pay for the war in Iraq.

Bush's budget included no money for the operation.

 

[Sillyman]

I'm starting to wonder if anyone in Washington actually hears anyone else. I know they're talking, I can see it on C-Span.

 

[pointless]

maybe something about being so close to baltimore makes them retarded.

 

[Sillyman]

Maybe there is some economic kickback in Iraq they haven't mentioned yet. The spending on infrastructure in Iraq after the war might help increase jobs. Possibly at least.

 

[Guest]

I reported on this last night

 

[70/30]

maybe something about being so close to baltimore makes them retarded.

This shit is funny. Maybe it's just because I've been downing Bavaria at a high rate of speed. Are we at war with Holland yet?

 

[Linedrive]

With the economy already strained and the bill yet to be paid in the War with Iraq everyone should be concerned and paying attention. I'd also like to present into your thoughts the cost of having another terrorist attack on US soil.

While it's good to question problems in the economy and government and it's good to analyize the cost of the war on Iraq, we must also weigh in the financial consequences of doing nothing. Another terrorist attack on large scale is certainly not going to do anything positive for the economy either.


Terrorist Attacks cost US airlines one billion per day
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jar/jar010913_1_n.shtml

SIA report terrorist attacks cost industry over one billion
http://www.registeredrep.com/ar/finance_sia_reports_terrorist

Terrorist attacks will cost insurers billions
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2001/09/10/daily26.html

 

[Sillyman]

This shit is funny. Maybe it's just because I've been downing Bavaria at a high rate of speed. Are we at war with Holland yet?

Holland is our momentary ally actually. The funny thing is that Iran is temporarily our ally but also knows it's on the list to scrub out next, if we don't go after North Korea.

 

[70/30]

Holland is our momentary ally actually.

Ok, I'm not a traitor yet. I'm walking on thin ice, I almost went over the line when I made some observations on Redwave's Fragging thread.

 

[Sillyman]

With the economy already strained and the bill yet to be paid in the War with Iraq everyone should be concerned and paying attention. I'd also like to present into your thoughts the cost of having another terrorist attack on US soil.

While it's good to question problems in the economy and government and it's good to analyize the cost of the war on Iraq, we must also weigh in the financial consequences of doing nothing. Another terrorist attack on large scale is certainly not going to do anything positive for the economy either.

Which is certainly true. However, I would like to point out that terrorists do not come from Iraq and that most of the 9-11 terrorists are Saudis. We have a vested interest currently in protecting Saudi Arabia, so we will not be doing anything about them. Even after regime change in Iraq we will still see threats from the Palestineans, Iran, Eygypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and multiple other countries. Terrorists are a disease and are capable of breeding anywhere, even in our own backyard. The chance that this war will prevent another attack is dubious in my mind.

What you are saying is ultimately is that we should spend billions of dollars now so we may or may not have to spend billions later. I don't see the savings myself if we pound Iraq into glass only to have Saudis come around next year and blow up the Missouri pipeline.

 

[Linedrive]

Which is certainly true. However, I would like to point out that terrorists do not come from Iraq and that most of the 9-11 terrorists are Saudis. We have a vested interest currently in protecting Saudi Arabia, so we will not be doing anything about them. Even after regime change in Iraq we will still see threats from the Palestineans, Iran, Eygypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and multiple other countries. Terrorists are a disease and are capable of breeding anywhere, even in our own backyard. The chance that this war will prevent another attack is dubious in my mind.

What you are saying is ultimately is that we should spend billions of dollars now so we may or may not have to spend billions later. I don't see the savings myself if we pound Iraq into glass only to have Saudis come around next year and blow up the Missouri pipeline.

Good points. What I am talking about is a large scale terrorist attack carried out in an American city with chemical or biological agents. I have little doubt that small terrorist cells within the US could carry out smaller scale attacks, we are too vulnerable to the sleeper cells we don't know about. What I am talking about is preventing something that will make September 11th look like a cartoon.

1. The Iraqi leadership has deep contempt towards America
2. The Iraqi leadership has known ties to terrorist organizations
3. The Iraqi leadership won't comply with UN inspections

I don't have a difficult time envisioning a scenerio where a chemical or biological agent is passed along to a terrorist organization and unleashed in America...it's really not that far of a stretch to picture this.

I'm saying the military action against Iraq is going to help in preventing a terrorist attack involving WMD's. And again, we could not possibly begin to imagine the cost of an attack in an American city that killed 100,000+...our economy would be crippled and in ruins.

 

[Somme]

Good points. What I am talking about is a large scale terrorist attack carried out in an American city with chemical or biological agents. I have little doubt that small terrorist cells within the US could carry out smaller scale attacks, we are too vulnerable to the sleeper cells we don't know about. What I am talking about is preventing something that will make September 11th look like a cartoon.

1. The Iraqi leadership has deep contempt towards America
2. The Iraqi leadership has known ties to terrorist organizations
3. The Iraqi leadership won't comply with UN inspections

I don't have a difficult time envisioning a scenerio where a chemical or biological agent is passed along to a terrorist organization and unleashed in America...it's really not that far of a stretch to picture this.

I'm saying the military action against Iraq is going to help in preventing a terrorist attack involving WMD's. And again, we could not possibly begin to imagine the cost of an attack in an American city that killed 100,000+...our economy would be crippled and in ruins.

Point of order here - the Iraqui leadership also has had contact with US politicians despite these same politicians not telling the US population. The next point is that Washington kept on telling the world that the Iraquis were not complying - despite the inspectors making a point of refuting this argument. We have also been conned with the WMD'S - and none have been found. So, positing scenarios on misinformation leads to?

 

[Linedrive]

Point of order here - the Iraqui leadership also has had contact with US politicians despite these same politicians not telling the US population. The next point is that Washington kept on telling the world that the Iraquis were not complying - despite the inspectors making a point of refuting this argument. We have also been conned with the WMD'S - and none have been found. So, positing scenarios on misinformation leads to?

I hope you are kidding if you think Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions against them. Hanns Blix said, "Saddam Hussein has no credibility" and continously complained about "limited cooperation" and "non forthcoming reports." You are dilusional if you think the UN inspections were working.

I've already seen at least 5 or 6 of you frothing at the mouth, demanding proof as to where these weapons are. The freaking war is barely a few days old and already you are demanding proof of their existance. Reality check.

 

[Sandia]

Ok, I'm not a traitor yet. I'm walking on thin ice, I almost went over the line when I made some observations on Redwave's Fragging thread.

Go for it, dud. You can always blame the beer.

 

[Sandia]

I hope you are kidding if you think Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions against them. Hanns Blix said, "Saddam Hussein has no credibility" and continously complained about "limited cooperation" and "non forthcoming reports." You are dilusional if you think the UN inspections were working.

I've already seen at least 5 or 6 of you frothing at the mouth, demanding proof as to where these weapons are. The freaking war is barely a few days old and already you are demanding proof of their existance. Reality check.

Annan, Blix regret Iraq conflict


United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has expressed regret that military action has begun against Iraq, saying that further diplomacy could have prevented war.
His statement comes after former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the BBC, criticised what he called American "impatience" to go to war with Iraq and suggested Washington had little interest in peaceful disarmament from the outset.

Mr Annan also spoke of the recent rift in the UN Security Council over military action saying it had shown the great importance that the people of the world attached to the legitimacy conveyed by the authority of the UN.

"The world could have taken action to solve this problem by a collective decision, endowing it with greater legitimacy, and therefore commanding wider support, than is now the case," he said.

The secretary general added that the UN would do anything it could to offer "assistance and support" to the Iraqi people as the prospect of a humanitarian crisis loom.

"I hope that all parties will scrupulously observe the requirements of international humanitarian law, and will do everything in their power to shield the civilian population from the grim consequences of war," he said.

US 'lost patience'

Speaking on the BBC's Today Programme shortly before US-led operations in Iraq began, Mr Blix said that Resolution 1441 on Iraqi disarmament, adopted last autumn, had been unrealistic.


I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections

Hans Blix
"The resolution (on Iraqi disarmament) that was adopted last autumn was extremely demanding and perhaps (the Americans) doubted that the Iraqis would go along with it and you would have a clash from the beginning," Mr Blix said.

Mr Blix, who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), said he was very disappointed that inspections were aborted.

"We had made rapid start," he said. "We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq."

The former chief inspector also pointed out that his teams had secured the destruction of some of Iraq's al-Samoud II missiles.

But the Americans "lost patience some time at the end of January or the beginning of February," Mr Blix said.

He suggested that Washington was "doubtful from the beginning" about the process.

"I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections," Mr Blix said.

However Mr Blix said the mission had showed that it was possible to have a UN inspection regime that was truly international and independent from the intelligence services of member states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867913.stm

 

[Sillyman]

Good points. What I am talking about is a large scale terrorist attack carried out in an American city with chemical or biological agents. I have little doubt that small terrorist cells within the US could carry out smaller scale attacks, we are too vulnerable to the sleeper cells we don't know about. What I am talking about is preventing something that will make September 11th look like a cartoon.

1. The Iraqi leadership has deep contempt towards America
2. The Iraqi leadership has known ties to terrorist organizations
3. The Iraqi leadership won't comply with UN inspections

Good point, again. However, many other coutries fulfill the same criteria, and are not considered high enough prority to involve us going to war with. Many components to WMD are even now fairly easy to come across, and for a terrorists purposes can be bought and made quite easily. The scientists and material are available all over the world and not just in Iraq, and there are numerous countries that already possess WMD and a ravenous hatred for the US, including North Korea and if I'm not mistaken Cuba. I feel our trust is misplaced if we go after the guy who MIGHT or ALMOST has weapons instead of the guy we KNOW has weapons.

Then there is a deeper concern. Part of what protects us from Terrorist threats is the CIA, FBI and other security agencies. If the cost of the war is too great, that will mean budget cuts in the government to make up for the loss, which while not only weaken social programs creating greater amounts of civil unrest, it could also damage or security structure.

 

[Sandia]

Also, this attack will increase support for terrorism.

The CIA says Al Qaeda is using Iraq to recruit new members.

 

[Somme]

I hope you are kidding if you think Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions against them. Hanns Blix said, "Saddam Hussein has no credibility" and continously complained about "limited cooperation" and "non forthcoming reports." You are dilusional if you think the UN inspections were working.

I've already seen at least 5 or 6 of you frothing at the mouth, demanding proof as to where these weapons are. The freaking war is barely a few days old and already you are demanding proof of their existance. Reality check.

Would it ever really have mattered what Blix ever said? Do not be abusive - it doesn't help matters. There are enough good reasons to doubt the motives of Washington - should you be interested in mature and open debate I'll listen.