April 4 2013 - The 10th anniversary of invading Iraq has come and gone. As responsible citizens, we must look again at the professed reasons for beginning the war, tally up the costs in blood, treasure and national reputation, and compare them to the benefits, if any, from this geopolitical adventure. The aftermath of war lives on and on and on.Former Sen. Robert Bennett in his column on March 25, answered a question posed by the healine: "Is Iraq better off because of war?"
He amplified the question in the body of his column, "Is Iraq — and the world — better off because of the war?" and answered in the affirmative.
A more specific and more relevant question for U.S. citizens is this:"Is the United States better off because of the war?" read more>>>
From the Costs of War Project: Because the Iraq war appropriations for FY2003 - FY2013 were not funded with new taxes, but by borrowing, it is important to keep in mind the interest costs already paid, and future interest costs. Iraq War appropriations for DOD and State were 54 percent of the interest costs. If one were to include Iraq's share of cumulative interest through 2053, those costs could be more than $3.9 trillion.
24 November 2009 - Even before Bush's administration came to power an article written by his then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, warned that "nothing will change" in Iraq until Saddam was gone27 November 2009 - But there was a 'sea change' in attitude after the atrocities, with former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice targeting Iraq on the very day of the outrage.
1 December 2009 - There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light".
And more, we still have nothing on what went on behind closed doors and may or may not with the final report, if and when it's released.
No comments:
Post a Comment