Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Duelfer Report
Line 178: Line 178:  
From the second referenced page, I cannot find anything that suggests that the cost is $9 billion.  Instead, I find pages that point to the total war allocations being $510 billion through fiscal 07 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm].  The first referenced page suggests that care of the wounded from Iraq over the next decade will be $2.5 ''trillion''.  I would suggest that people double check their information for the facts here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
From the second referenced page, I cannot find anything that suggests that the cost is $9 billion.  Instead, I find pages that point to the total war allocations being $510 billion through fiscal 07 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm].  The first referenced page suggests that care of the wounded from Iraq over the next decade will be $2.5 ''trillion''.  I would suggest that people double check their information for the facts here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:This is a good observation.  There is a difference between "cost" and "allocations"; out of pocket "costs" now vs Iraq's ability to hold a large balance of payments surplus, provide needed oil reserves to world markets, and pay for its own security in the future without being a threat to it's neighbors or dependent on international humanitarian aid programs is not considered or calculated in any of these formulas.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:This is a good observation.  There is a difference between "cost" and "allocations"; out of pocket "costs" now vs Iraq's ability to hold a large balance of payments surplus, provide needed oil reserves to world markets, and pay for its own security in the future without being a threat to it's neighbors or dependent on international humanitarian aid programs is not considered or calculated in any of these formulas.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Duelfer Report ==
 +
 +
Okay this is getting insulting now.  The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities.  Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them.  The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing.  We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs.  It turns out he didnt.  Stop pretending otherwise.
152

edits

Navigation menu