Thread: It's finally over

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Of course Iraq will be at war in a year from now, but the USA won't be involved. They'll have democracy for a few months, then there will be civil war. Everyone knows that who's not licking George Bush's balls.

Yes, imagine if all of the money spent in Iraq had been put to education. We might not have such a poor schooling system compared to other countries. Are we even in the top 20 anymore?

Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.

Mmm, something interesting would be if Iraq went to war with Iran.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.

The US has been fucking up countries all over the world since the Cold War and forgetting about them, Iraq will be no different.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The US has been fucking up countries all over the world since the Cold War and forgetting about them, Iraq will be no different.

Oh, trust me I know. It didn't have to be that way again.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.

No, it has to do with the stability of the region. No president would be able to create democracy in Iraq for more than a few years. Where do you expect the money that you want to pour into Iraq to come from? Republicans don't realize that money spent on war has to come out of the economy via taxes.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Thank you Mr President: Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home - Yahoo! News For once a president kept the promise that got him elected in the first place. Took 2 years longer than we wanted, but at least it's done.

Now maybe the economy will pick up without the money drain of combat troops in Iraq.
There are still 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq, but that's not going to costs us 10 billion dollars a month.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the media.

Don't believe the news when you hear that there are no longer "combat brigades" in Iraq. There most definitely are, they just changed our name to "Advise and Assist Brigades" so it sounds more pleasant.

-Old battle buddy of mine who's still serving in the military.

Because everyone knows if you pour a ton of money into a department, it will automatically improve. Last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided the fate of Iraq. George Bush started the war, I know, but Obama assumed full responsibility when he ran for president. All atrocities still pending fruition as a result of this decision will be almost entirely on the hands of Obama.

Wait wait wait... if you run for President, that means you're endorsing the actions of your predecessor?

er wat

Wasn't there only 50,000 troops in Iraq to start with? So they had troops in Iraq, had a huge surge of troops, then went back to normal levels and said they withdrew all the combat troops? I guess it was true after all, we will stay over there forever and 50,000 troops in that country as the new 'normal'.

Over you say? victory? this is no victory, this is just the beginning.

Things will likely spiral back to chaos, and we will never leave entirely, just like we never leave any nation entirely after we blow it up.

We are still in Germany, even though the last bomb we dropped on them was in 1945.

Originally Posted by guerilla

We are still in Germany, even though the last bomb we dropped on them was in 1945.

You're thinking of Japan.

You're thinking of The Bomb.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, it has to do with the stability of the region. No president would be able to create democracy in Iraq for more than a few years. Where do you expect the money that you want to pour into Iraq to come from? Republicans don't realize that money spent on war has to come out of the economy via taxes.

And anybody who uses the "cost of war" argument doesn't realize that America will build up its military whether it's in a war or not, and most people don't seem to realize that it costs just as much if not more to train soldiers for combat as it does to actually fight a war. "No war" does not translate to more money for things like education.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait wait wait... if you run for President, that means you're endorsing the actions of your predecessor?

er wat

No, it means you assume responsibility for what happens now and in the future. You can't blame everything on your predecessor being an "idiot." It was Obama's decision to place an arbitrary date for the witdrawal of troops which undermines any progress made by the Bush administration. Whatever happens in Iraq now is therefore entirely President Obama's responsibility.

Originally Posted by Alric

Image that all the money spent on the war, was never collected in taxes and the people had it still. There probably wouldn't be a recession right now. Also, nothing can be done in Iraq if they go into civil war and kill each other. I mean we did the best we could, we have been there for years. We can't be there forever, eventually they have to do their own thing.

Originally Posted by Alric

Oh and one other thing. I knew it was just propaganda when you first posted this but I went and checked it out. There are still 50,000 American troops in Iraq. They are not combat troops though(as if there are noncombat members of military with their own tanks). I suppose they are peace keeping troops. You do realize that we fought entire wars with 'peace keeping' troops before right? Oh I forget they weren't wars, they were just a "military engagements" that lasted years, with thousands of people dying.

I mean seriously, you have to play pretty loose with the words army, when 50,000 people isn't considered an army.

second that.

god when it'll all be over?

Originally Posted by Alric

Image that all the money spent on the war, was never collected in taxes and the people had it still. There probably wouldn't be a recession right now. Also, nothing can be done in Iraq if they go into civil war and kill each other. I mean we did the best we could, we have been there for years. We can't be there forever, eventually they have to do their own thing.

The total cost per taxpayer on average is about $7,500 since 2001. At well under a grand per year, I seriously doubt that not going to war would have prevented the recession. It really isn't that hard to trim out a few hundred bucks from the yearly budget for most Americans. It may require sacrificing a luxury good or two, but it can be done relatively painlessly. Perhaps if people lived within their means the recession could have been averted, but sadly, this is America, land of the brave, the free, and the overconsumers.

But yeah, Iraq was a stupid detour in a retarded war. We should have just bombed the shit out of Afghanistan right off the bat to take out the Taliban while they were small. Instead, we putzed around for the better side of a decade in a region only distantly related to the original cause of war, and now the Taliban is winning.

Originally Posted by Mario92

We should have just bombed the shit out of Afghanistan right off the bat to take out the Taliban while they were small.

We did.

You sound totally clueless when you talk like that. You might as well be telling poorer families to screw off, since you clearly don't care about them. That is a lot of money. Most people cant effortlessly cut 800 dollars out of their budget each year.

The recession was caused by shitty lending practises and speculation in the housing market in the US and would have happened whether or not people had a few extra bucks.

Also, find Bin Laden already, it's getting pathetic.

Yea but wasting money, doesn't exactly help you get out of the recession either does it? Which is the main problem, that the government just makes everything worse.

Originally Posted by Alric

You sound totally clueless when you talk like that. You might as well be telling poorer families to screw off, since you clearly don't care about them. That is a lot of money. Most people cant effortlessly cut 800 dollars out of their budget each year.

Of course, you are assuming a perfectly linear tax curve, when in reality, this is not so. The extraordinarily wealthy are taxed much more heavily. So in reality, poor families are only getting taxed maybe thirty bucks a year for the war. And as for the wealthy, I guess they just have to wait another year before they purchase that new yacht...

There is no war tax. You get taxed the same whether we are in a war or not.

There used to be. http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...one-tax_x.html

Originally Posted by Caprisun

There is no war tax. You get taxed the same whether we are in a war or not.

So the money for wars comes from... where?

Originally Posted by Xei

So the money for wars comes from... where?

I would presume from siphoning it out of other government programs...like education.