http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=1178


Town Square

Will Congress finally cut them off?

Original post made by Albert, Duveneck/St. Francis, on Apr 12, 2007

On Monday, April 9, 2007, the Boston Herald reported that the US military had announced the Easter weekend deaths of 10 more American soldiers, including six killed on Sunday. The Associated Press reports that, since the war began in March 2003, over 3,000 members of the US military have been killed in Iraq, as of April 8, 2007.

This story contains 1685 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 12, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Just looking at some of you overall figures (taking them at face value):

1. The $400B cost of the fight against terrorists, since 9/11/01 is about 0.5% of GDP (GDP is about 13T per year, 6 years since 9/11 = 78T, 400B/78T = 0.5%). Very low cost, considering the threat. What is your point?

2. Assuming that you mean that the war in Iraq is independent of the overall war against various terrorists (I'm not sure you mean this, but I am giving it to you), the cost of the Iraq war is about 54B per year. This is about 0.04% of GDP over the six year since 9/11. Combining items 1 and 2, we are spending about 0.54% of GDP. This figure is no where near what we spent in various other wars. What is your point?

3. We have lost about 3500 dead in Iraq. Compare that to various other American wars. While always tragic for each family who loses a loved one, this war is very low cost in terms of blood. What is your point?


Like this comment
Posted by Albert
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

My point, which I suspect you understand very well, is that this war is totally unrelated to the 'war on terrorism' and that one of the main reasons for it is war profiteering, by characters such as George W Bush and the entire Bush family, VP Dick Cheney and many of their cohorts. They are using the blood of US troops in order to get filthy rich. They have also made us far less secure and turned the US into the most hated country in the world at an enormous cost to our global strategic interests and prestige. The war profiteering scheme though is enough to have Congress cut off all funding and force an immediate withrawal of our troops. Impeachment and criminal charges, including treason should follow.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Sean, I'm sure that Al can answer for himself. It sounds like one of the major points that he is trying to convey is that there has been a great deal of war profiteering going on during the war, especially by members of the Bush family, and that this family has very close ties with the Bin Laden family in the middle east. Also, defense contractors have "made a killing" over the past five years. There salaries have increased dramatically. I suggest rereading the article for clarification.


Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 12, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I find it very ominous that when Bin Laden was trapped in the Tora Bora caves and the CIA operative on the ground asked the Pentagon for 400 Rangers to get him, certain that the local militias would never capture Bin laden, the Pentagon refused to send any troops to that area. It was obvious to him that they wanted Bin Laden to escape. We can only speculate, but were they afraid he would be caught alive and disclose the ties of the Bush family to his? Conveniently, Musharaf 'does not allow' US troops to operate in the region he's suspected of hiding in and no one in the Bush administration even talks of capturing him. Did the Bin Laden family pressure Bush to leave him alone? It seems like the war profitering and the close Bin Laden family-Bush family connections are closely related.


Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Capitalist industries make products, with the goal of making profit. During peacetime war industries are not very profitable, because there is not very much demand for their products. During war times there is a demand for their products, and they make bigger profits. America has excellent war tools, produced by war industries. That is what they are supposed to do. Why is this shocking to anybody?

The substantive question is wheter or not war industries are driving war policy. I don't see it. I also don't believe in Sasquatch, but maybe that is my problem. I just don't draw the line(s) between Osama and the rest of his family, which owns a very big construction company in the Mid East. The last I had heard, they disowned him. Some of this discussion sound like those conspiracy theories that 'prove' that there was another shooter in the JFK assasination. I think Oswald did it all by himself.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Sean, we have had a permanent wartime economy since the second world war. Perhaps you are not familiar with Eisenhower's famous speech in regards to the military industrial complex. In terms of manufacturing, harldly anything is made here anymore, as most of the manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas to countries like china and india. You seem to be avoiding the original post by Al, and the issues he raised. To dismiss these critical issues as being conspiratory is a typical response, which only serves to distract us from the topics at hand. I suggest that you do some investigations of your own. I recommend the following websites:

www.globalresearch.ca
and reading some foreign papers like the guardian.uk


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2007 at 9:35 pm

another useful site for sean and others is www.counterpunch.org


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2007 at 9:39 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2007 at 9:45 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Haddaway
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:51 am

Yes, it's time that we "surrender" now. Don't use the word "withdraw" or "redeploy." Use the term our enemy will use -- surrender! When you cut and run, you're surrendering. You think the casualties are high now -- just wait. It will make the 2 million slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge look like a dress rehearsal. Our surrender will also provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda. They'll finally have a state!


Like this comment
Posted by ABC
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

It will be beneficial if Al Qaeda had a state. It would be easy to attack and destroy. Right now Al Qaeda is all over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. etc.



Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2007 at 5:36 am

The implication in the original statement is that war is an opportunity for immense profit. It is not. The opportunities for profit are vastly greater in peacetime. Wartime profits have long been subject to audit and recovery.


Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2007 at 9:21 am

This thread should be titled "Time to Cut and Run" or "Time to Surrender". It's time to stop continually blaming President Bush and start placing some of the blame on leaders in the Democrat party. Appeasing the hard left by continuing to make empty promises at election time should not be received by thoughtful voters as acceptable behavior.


Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 13, 2007 at 9:29 am

Kate--I cannot believe that you are seriously blaming the Democrats for the fiasco in Iraq.
What should not be "received by thoughtful voters as acceptable behavior" is the continuous stream of lies emanating from the White House, the fact that our soldiers are being sent off to war ill-trained and ill-equipped (remember old Donnie Rumsfield's quote about the army you have), then being mistreated when they return wounded--the list goes on and on.


Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2007 at 9:40 am

Bush started this war and the Democratic party is to blame for it. I don't think I've heard this kind of abusrdity in a long time. The surge is a sameless and immoral scheme to save the Bush presidency using the blood of our trrops. Cut and run is the wrong chice of words. It should be: impeach,remove from office prosecute and jail Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 13, 2007 at 9:50 am

walter, exxon recently posted the largest profits of any company in the history of our time on the earth...during war. Once again, we've had a permanent war time economy since wwII. Your statements don't make sense.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2007 at 11:29 am

Exxon sells a great deal of product. By any measure except sheer bulk they were only middling successful.
Whatever success they do enjoy they can thank the greenies who have opposed all domestic oil production. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 13, 2007 at 12:32 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:20 pm

The original thrust of this thread was, essentially, two-fold:

1. The Iraq war is unacceptably costly in terms of blood and treasure.

2. It (the war) is driven by war profiteering, with special emphasis on the Bush family connections.

I have already argued that this war is not very costly, compared to other wars the U.S. has fought.

I see no credible evidence that the war policy is driven by the profit motive and/or war profiteer political connections. This does not mean that there are not profits for war materials/services corporations. But where is the evidence that these people are driving policy?

The palpable hatred for Bush (e.g. sarlat) , by some of the posts, does not serve your arguments. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Where's the beef?


Like this comment
Posted by anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm

clearly sean you have not done your research:
the evidence, or beef, as you choose to call it, can be located in the websites that were previously mentioned.

www.counterpunch.org
www.globalresearch.ca
www.guardian.uk

perhaps if you actually do some research, you will find the meat that you claim to be hungry for. In regards to hysteria, and claiming that people are merely anti-bush, i have not seen any evidence of that in this forum. In regards to analytical capacity, the research should do you some good. it's not about hatred. It's about ending the atrocities that are government has started, with its blatant use of aggression, and total lack of diplomacy. perhaps you are not aware of the huge deficit that are country is now burdened with. the clinton administration had brought this under control, but since the republicans have been in office, it has increased to the highest levels of all time, and thus threatens the global market in many ways. try not to be so quick to judge, and actually do some research. perhaps then you will have something to add to the forum. remember, that just because you refuse to see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm

The beef is in the original post that started this thread. There's much additional proof that one of the reasons for this war was war profiteering by the likes of the Bush family and Cheney. Those who support Bush and this war will not be influenced by it, just like flat earthers, who deny that the earth is round even when they look at satellite photos of it.


Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:49 pm

anon,

I'm not going to do your research for you. Provide some credible evidence that war profiteers are driving the war policies. I haven't seen any yet. Be specific, don't just refer to some questionable websites. Give relevant facts and numbers. I have already shot down the notion that the (given) numbers prove the case. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 13, 2007 at 1:57 pm

sean, i have done, and will continue to do my research. I told you where you could find some beef, which you claimed to be looking for. If you refuse to look for it, and merely dismiss the sites that i suggested, than so be it. accusing sarat of hysterics and juvenille behavior is totally unacceptabe. He has made some fine contributions, and i say this not because that i agree or disagree. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by anon.
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 13, 2007 at 2:11 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2007 at 2:15 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Marvin - What have the Democrats done to date....Vote for the war and then continue to fund it. I think what I said is accurate.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2007 at 7:38 am

How about a comparison of the profits of defense contractors and civilian product producers? If war is so profitable the stock market should show it. Which way did the market go when Iran took the latest hostages, bucky?


Like this comment
Posted by Draw the Line
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm

To Kate

I love your bottom line

"What have the Democrats done to date....Vote for the war and then continue to fund it."

They do so because they know extremely well that to do otherwise, regardless of their mouthings to the far left, spells suicide for the United States and the death of millions in Iraq, not to mention the return of a dictatorship and a haven for terrorists.. They just can't tell the truth out loud to their base because either their base doesn't understand that, or their base WANTS us to leave in defeat, no matter how you name it.