Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
Speaking out of one side of the mouth bitching at the costs of the war and speaking out the other side and saying, "hey let's spend the money on something else!". It does not sound like we are headed towards a repair of the debt from 8 years of war. Personally I think the damm Iraqi's should pay for part of it.
|
In 1990, the world demanded that Kuwait be liberated. So America did the work AND the world paid for it. Notice that a massive war resulted in little damage to the American economy.
In 2002, hardly anybody (not even Iraqis) demanded Saddam's overthrow. But the US decided to liberate people who really did not want the resulting destruction. As a result, only the US is responsible for those debts.
Worse, America believed what the liars said it would cost. Rumsfeld said it would cost only $2billion and be paid by Iraqi oil funds. Realistic number even obvious to me was more like $400billion. Actual number is maybe $1trillion. $1trillion to liberate people who mostly did not want that liberation AND that all Iraq's neighbors said was not necessary.
Robert Baer defines that was obvious then: We handed Iraq to Iran. Baer also says, "Neither Bush nor McCain understand this."
Kuwait was a war defined by a smoking gun. Therefore America paid very little. "Mission Accomplished" is an example of war justified by lies and by someone who said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Who pays? Welcome to a domestic economy that is just starting to pay those bills.