They do have direct and indirect impact on our national economy, which is reason enough for me to care what happens to them. Our military also uses lots and lots of fuel, so they're important to national security in that way. Life could get pretty bad for America without Persian Gulf oil on the market. The impact on our pocketbooks, our lives, and our security of a wider Middle East war which significantly reduced oil production would far exceed the impact the occupation of Iraq is having on those things.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Al Q has it's back broken in Iraq. ZERO Al Q control in Baghdad!!
- Thread starter Bruxley
- Start date
They do have direct and indirect impact on our national economy, which is reason enough for me to care what happens to them. Our military also uses lots and lots of fuel, so they're important to national security in that way. Life could get pretty bad for America without Persian Gulf oil on the market. The impact on our pocketbooks, our lives, and our security of a wider Middle East war which significantly reduced oil production would far exceed the impact the occupation of Iraq is having on those things.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
We get only around 15% of our oil from the ME, and a very small fraction of that from Iraq.
If the sheikhs shut off the spigots tomorrow, it wouldn't be fatal to our economy, since most of our oil comes from Canada, South America, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Losing the Iraqi oil source would cost us more than the three quarter trillion dollars we've already dumped down that hole in the sand?
If the sheikhs shut off the spigots tomorrow, it wouldn't be fatal to our economy, since most of our oil comes from Canada, South America, and the Gulf of Mexico.
The impact on our pocketbooks, our lives, and our security of a wider Middle East war which significantly reduced oil production would far exceed the impact the occupation of Iraq is having on those things.
Losing the Iraqi oil source would cost us more than the three quarter trillion dollars we've already dumped down that hole in the sand?
The price of our oil depends on the global market, and the Middle East produces about 25% of the oil on the market. It would be a shock to our economy, and the economy of every industrial nation.
Yes, it would be very costly, and we can't guarantee we wouldn't be drawn back into the fight when a bunch of Kurds and maybe some other Iraqis are fighting with our NATO ally Turkey. That's just one likely possibility. A worldwide oil price spike could have all kinds of destabilizing effects around the world, including in places with nuclear weapons such as Pakistan and India.
I've said many times that we grabbed a tiger by the tail with this war. Probably best to hang on until it gets tired. It's gonna be a while.
Yes, it would be very costly, and we can't guarantee we wouldn't be drawn back into the fight when a bunch of Kurds and maybe some other Iraqis are fighting with our NATO ally Turkey. That's just one likely possibility. A worldwide oil price spike could have all kinds of destabilizing effects around the world, including in places with nuclear weapons such as Pakistan and India.
I've said many times that we grabbed a tiger by the tail with this war. Probably best to hang on until it gets tired. It's gonna be a while.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
At a billion dollars a day, and a thousand-odd American lives a year, I don't think we can hold that tiger by the tail indefinitely.
Thumper:
Just because you are vet does not give you free licence to make random comparisons of this war to others, the argument simply does not fly and is a cheap tactic to prove a point.
I serve and yes I am proud but that does not make me perfect or above reproach. If you don't agree with me or like what I am saying: tough, but please don't pull any punches because I am vet or because you are.
At this point we are all speculating about the future, but I think we can both agree on "hoping we win". The main difference is that I am much more skeptical than you about our success and our direction.
Let me ask you (and others that feel as you do) this:
How can you trust the constant touts of "success" coming from the same sources that have been methodically and consistently wrong about so many other issues in Iraq? (WMD, underestimating the resistance and ethnic tension, among others) It is in their best interest to paint the most rosy picture possible.
Sanctimonious victum ploy? You know what, me being a vet or you being vet or anybody being a vet really has little bearing on this.Thumper is a proud Veteran, too, hot rod. Thank you for your service, but your sanctimonious victim ploy is transparent.
Just because you are vet does not give you free licence to make random comparisons of this war to others, the argument simply does not fly and is a cheap tactic to prove a point.
I serve and yes I am proud but that does not make me perfect or above reproach. If you don't agree with me or like what I am saying: tough, but please don't pull any punches because I am vet or because you are.
At this point we are all speculating about the future, but I think we can both agree on "hoping we win". The main difference is that I am much more skeptical than you about our success and our direction.
Let me ask you (and others that feel as you do) this:
How can you trust the constant touts of "success" coming from the same sources that have been methodically and consistently wrong about so many other issues in Iraq? (WMD, underestimating the resistance and ethnic tension, among others) It is in their best interest to paint the most rosy picture possible.
The impact on our pocketbooks, our lives, and our security of a wider Middle East war which significantly reduced oil production would far exceed the impact the occupation of Iraq is having on those things.
I was going to say what Marko said. 15% of our domestic consumption is less than 1 billion dollars a day, so even in comparison to your worst-case scenario this war is bad for our economy. Not that I'd be comfortable with sacraficing the blood of our servicemen to line my pockets in any case...
And ultimately it doesn't matter anyway. If this war isn't going great by next Nov 15th it's a dead issue.
The success is empirical. And it is becoming apparent that if the Congress wouldn't have been so obstructionist in giving this General the resources he needed to implement the plan he was unanimously confirmed to implement we would have alot less honored dead. He was confirmed in January 06' and didn't get what he needed until June. Effects were immediate as August until present have been steady, consistent progress. The period from January until then while the Congress tried to assure failure was among the bloodiest since the war began. And they are STILL working to beat that clock right now denying the NOW SUCCEEDING war effort the resources they need. How can the Democrats leading this unpopular obstruction in the face of success avoid responsibility for those lives lost? When this General has what he needs he gets the job done.
From another thread:
From another thread:
Agreed Manedwolf. And this isn't to stop the war via legislation cutting off funding. It APPROVES funding but has the caveat of troop with draws on the DEMOCRAT schedule rather then the unanimously confirmed, STATED schedule of General Petraeus. It's not de-authorization, it's tampering with the success. The Democrat leadership is now accountable for any honored dead that result from lack of resources.Bruxley, now Reid has succeeded in causing a funding problem by refusing to put forward a working bridge spending bill.
The troops are going to be short of stuff, they're going to have to use operating budgets to fund the war, and lay off 200,000 military-employed citizens in January as a result.
Reid just tried to scuttle the successes of the war, out of traitorous spite.
Any soldier that dies from running out of ammo or parts, their blood will be on his hands.
Unregistered
Moderator
I respectfully disagree. The Democrats are trying to end the war by defunding it. The idea that Democrats are to blame if soldiers run out of supplies is silly. The Commander in Chief and his generals should not engage in battle unless they are adequately equipped. If they enter battle knowing they are undersupplied, and troops die, then it is the fault of our military leaders and CinC. It would be a shame if the President continued to fight a war, knowing troops were under-equipped, and sacrifice the soldiers for his own political gain.
Whatever plans the President has for Iraq has to be able to be supported by whatever funds Congress chooses to give him.
Whatever plans the President has for Iraq has to be able to be supported by whatever funds Congress chooses to give him.
Again, it's not a matter of aproval or amount. Another version of the same legislation that DIDN'T have troop withdraws on the Democrat timetable was voted down the same day. It is about scuttling the success not approving the funds or the amount.
Their actions are summed up by "We'll write the check if you let us run the job into the ground otherwise we'll let you fail for lack of resources."
A more thorough understanding of the role of Congress, the President, and the military may save some embarrassment along your track of reasoning.
Their actions are summed up by "We'll write the check if you let us run the job into the ground otherwise we'll let you fail for lack of resources."
A more thorough understanding of the role of Congress, the President, and the military may save some embarrassment along your track of reasoning.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think the Generals and Commander in Chief are going to have to figure out plans that match the funds they get from Congress.
Your apparently confused about military appropriations. You have this backwards. Congress has already approved this action. They unanimously confirmed Petraeus with full knowledge of this strategy, it's now up to them to appropriate funds. They do, of course, have the option of NOT funding the war any longer but this isn't legislation to STOP funding.
Just to let you know, the Congress has no authority to execute the efforts of the military. And it's kind odd that you seem to think they say hey, we'll give ya' 100 million dollars......do what you can.
Is this the sophistry game again? LOL
Just to let you know, the Congress has no authority to execute the efforts of the military. And it's kind odd that you seem to think they say hey, we'll give ya' 100 million dollars......do what you can.
Is this the sophistry game again? LOL
JuanCarlos
New member
Your aperently confused about military apropriations. You have this backwards. Congress has already aproved this action. They unanimously confirmed Petreaus with full knowledge of this stradegey, it's now up to them to apropriate funds. They do, of course, have the option of NOT funding the war any longer but this isn't legislation to STOP funding.
Approving Petraeus is not a blanket and indefinite approval of his decisions and plans, nor an commitment to fund them indefinitely. They can quite simply change their minds.
Also, I thought at the time they were largely approving a temporary surge, followed by (hopefully) a drawdown. The temporary surge has been allowed to happen, and all this does is mandate the temporary drawdown afterwards (with the threat of losing funding).
Unregistered
Moderator
Approving Petraeus is not a blanket and indefinite approval of his decisions and plans, nor an commitment to fund them indefinitely. They can quite simply change their minds.
That is how I see things also. At one point the Democrats approved, now they don't, so they have changed their funding. I don't like the idea of having to pull out of Iraq until things are stable, but I also don't see how we can afford to keep doing what we have been doing either. I don't think we are getting a good return on our tax money.
Confirming Petraeus knowing his plan is in fact aproval. The 'surge' was even authorized individually.
Pay attention. The legislation IS NOT a resolution to stop funding, it IS NOT a de-authorization, it IS NOT a budget dispute with the military. It IS appropriations with caveat of DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP schedule for troop withdraw despite General Petraeus ALREADY having given a schedule for troop withdraw. THAT was voted yea upon. Another version that DIDN'T have troop withdraw was voted NAY.
The dollars aren't the issue. The power to stop funding is ALWAYS an option but has not yet been exercised. The issue is withdrawing the force PREMATURELY thereby undermining the successes thus far realized. Should Generals or Senators execute a war?
Is the reality of this beyond comprehension or just hard to swallow?
Try gathering up some actual factual information to support your arguments. You may find that discovering the difference between what you 'feel', what you 'think'. and what you 'know' will become a valuable thing.
Pay attention. The legislation IS NOT a resolution to stop funding, it IS NOT a de-authorization, it IS NOT a budget dispute with the military. It IS appropriations with caveat of DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP schedule for troop withdraw despite General Petraeus ALREADY having given a schedule for troop withdraw. THAT was voted yea upon. Another version that DIDN'T have troop withdraw was voted NAY.
The dollars aren't the issue. The power to stop funding is ALWAYS an option but has not yet been exercised. The issue is withdrawing the force PREMATURELY thereby undermining the successes thus far realized. Should Generals or Senators execute a war?
Is the reality of this beyond comprehension or just hard to swallow?
Try gathering up some actual factual information to support your arguments. You may find that discovering the difference between what you 'feel', what you 'think'. and what you 'know' will become a valuable thing.
Unregistered
Moderator
An ever shrinking number of people (including Republicans) agree with you Bruxley. General Petraeus will need to change his plan to comply with the will of the people.
Again, leadership by popular opinion isn't leadership. Force a General to change a plan that is yielding results? Now why would someone do that? Seems it would only serve those more interested in defeat. As for your statement about 'most people', is that something you feel, think, or know?
Cutting off resources in the face of success to force a General change a results yielding plan would most defiantly make those that cut off funds fully accountable for the blood of even more of our honored dead. Cut off funding or give them what they need. Time costs lives. Th delays from this chicanery has already yielded an un-necessarily bloody 6 months. The General's plan is yielding SIGNIFICANT reductions is violence and in deaths and in local to central political reconciliation, and in infertile ground for AlQ. Yeah, forcing that to change is what the Democrat leadership is doing eh.
Friend of my enemy is my what again.
Cutting off resources in the face of success to force a General change a results yielding plan would most defiantly make those that cut off funds fully accountable for the blood of even more of our honored dead. Cut off funding or give them what they need. Time costs lives. Th delays from this chicanery has already yielded an un-necessarily bloody 6 months. The General's plan is yielding SIGNIFICANT reductions is violence and in deaths and in local to central political reconciliation, and in infertile ground for AlQ. Yeah, forcing that to change is what the Democrat leadership is doing eh.
Friend of my enemy is my what again.
Unregistered
Moderator
Force a General to change a plan that is yielding results? Now why would someone do that?
Maybe because people don't care what happens and have realized it costs too much to continue?
In the end, I don't think we will ever create a western-friendly democracy in a unified Iraq. Whether we stay there for 10 years or 20 years or what ever. Its just a matter of how much tax payer money we want to waste before we realize it.