Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

Texas Straight Talk ^ | September 1, 2003 | US Rep. Ron Paul

[bc2]

"Thomas Jefferson was a fool, and infected many with his insane ravings. Study his personal life if you don't believe me."

interesting observations. Do you have a starting point for this research?

[Sacajaweau]

You're correct. The Iraqis will fund the reconstruction as we get the wells operating. The sabotage has caused the spiraling figures.

And if we worried about cost instead of the world at large, we would have lost every war and freedom that we possess.

Don't forget, those folks don't generally work for a living and were reduced to beggars by Saddam while he built his 60 new palaces!! It's going to take a while just to convert them to a "work" ethic.

[Iris7]

I said in my #11, "Moving from the present political order to one that rejects Empire would cause economic and political upheaval here in the USA. Israel would be lost, and Arab Nationalism unchecked, and the whole oil zone would be dominated by Saddam Hussein look alikes all in love with their long range missiles, near Earth space systems of offense and defense, and their nuclear weapons."

Actually a more likely scenario is for the Chinese, or even the Russians, or, believe it or not, the Germans and French, to move in to dominate the oil producing regions. Too much power and money is at stake.

[A. Pole]

Thomas Jefferson was a fool, and infected many with his insane ravings.

Yeah, Jefferson was a fool and Wolfowitz is a genius. Right.

[thoughtomator]

Essential background reading

This should answer all your questions about whys and hows.

[bc2]

I was reffering to your "Jefferson was a fool" post.

Have any readily available sources for hungry minds?

[Iris7]

The Middle East operation will cost many, many times more than a trivial $150 Billion. Notice my thoughts above for how I see things. An office building in New York City more or less is very small potatoes except as atrocity propaganda. Much worse will happen down the road.

[A. Pole]

Would the author spend all his savings to get a cure for cancer, or would he prefer to go the cheap route and die with lots of money?

Every year 200 times more Americans die out of cancer than died in WTC with a death that is often much more horrible. And Iraq has as much in common with WTC as coffee with cancer.

A fraction of money spent on nation "building" in Iraq would make a big difference in research on cancer.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Can we afford to occupy the Balkans?

[A. Pole]

This should answer all your questions about whys and hows.

You are evading the key question. Well, you cannot answer it since the WTC bombers were from Saudi Arabia and they were Islamists and not secualr Baathists. You know it very well.

[meenie]

What did Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks? Is there a secret that the freepers know that I have not been let in on? I thought that conservatives were supposed to be thinkers instead of dimwits such as the Dumocrats. I heard that most 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. There were no Iraqis on the list of attackers and now we hear Iraqis were responsible. What gives?

[RinaseaofDs]

I agree.

We can also put this in terms of battlefields. If the effect of democratizing Iraq is the funneling of terrorist resources into Iraq, then I prefer Iraq as a battlefield to Manhattan or Seattle.

If the costs do anything, it will be to add impetus to our closing off the funding of these organizations with even more zeal.

If anything this is just going to force us to take a very long look at who our friends are, and what it is they mean to us militarily and economically.

Our relationships with China, France, and Germany are up for new scrutiny.

[boris]

"WTC attack $150+ billion damage and still mounting.
Can we afford not to occupy Iraq?"

The problem is--and has been--that Iraq was down on the list of real targets. The WTC attack was paid for by the Saudis and most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Then there is Iran (almost nuclear-armed), Syria, Pakistan--and North Korea.

Personally I still think we should have nuked them all--Mecca and Medina included--and simply put a total embargo on any trade and travel between the West and the Islamic world.

They have oil. We can--with the will and the technology--do without it. We have computers, electrical generators, medicine, aircraft, cars, satellites, and all the other fruits of infidel nations. Let them do without any of this.

I am completely serious. Nuke them back to 700 A.D. and let them return to camels in the desert. No more flight training. No more PhDs in biology (to help them make bio weapons). No more travel--in either direction.

They need US more than we need THEM. Indeed, civilization needs Islam not at all. So let's roll--and be done with it.

Nation-building: pfah. Boots on the ground: idiocy.

And for those who think this too extreme, I have only one response: 9/11/2001. The next one they pull is likely to be worse. Even if we try to win their "hearts and minds".

--Boris

[bc2]

no, occupying the Balkans is also wrong.

[thoughtomator]

Having been physically present for both WTC attacks, and on the 49th floor of WTC tower 2 for the first one, I have had an intense interest in knowing the truth about this war.

Having done a very large amount of information gathering on the war, the link I presented to you is the most concise and clear explanation of what is going on.

You should at least do me the courtesy of reading it before you dismiss it; you couldn't possibly have done so in the time it took to reply to my post.

[bayourod]

"Ron Paul is a man of the Republic, and I respect him enough that I would like to go to his distsrict and get to know the people who elected him. "

You would meet a lot of wealthy welfare farmers. They oppose government spending on anything that would leave less money available for farm programs. Ron Paul represents them very well.

[thoughtomator]

Saudi Arabia is the ultimate target. We were too dependent on them in 2001 to say so. Our dependence on S.A. has been dropping rapidly and soon will be low enough that we can deal with them any way we please.

[A. Pole]

Having been physically present for both WTC attacks, and on the 49th floor of WTC tower 2 for the first one, I have had an intense interest in knowing the truth about this war.

No you don't! Are you going to tell me that you saw the Iraqis there?

[Gunslingr3]

Thank you...my sentiments exactly. Some people just don't seem to understand that if we don't do something now, it will only cost us that much more down the road.

Intervention begets intervention. Washington warned, people quit listening. If I'd told you in 1990 that sending American troops to return a King to his throne in Kuwait would compel a religious nut to declare war on America for putting soldiers in his homeland. If I'd told you that said relgious nut would nearly break one of our ships in half, would devastate two of our embassies. Blow the face off an Air Force barracks in his homeland, slam a planeload of Americans into the Pentagon and bring down the WTC killing thousands more, would you have believed it?

Intervention begets intervention.