I thought I would add this as a topic of discussion.

to answer the question posed in the title.....
the last Gulf war saw something like 80% of the expenses of waging the war paid by the allied nations. we could have simply gone ahead and paid for it ourselves. But do you realize the implications that would have had on our budget and our economy?

similiarly, if we attack Iraq now (2003) without sufficient backing and all we are doing monetarily is bribing countries like Turkey to let us camp out there...... who is gonna foot the bill? the UK? (that doesn't mean the university of Kentucky by the way wink ) Spain? Good luck getting Aznar to pay. Any of those Baltic former soviet republics that supported us in the UN? Do they even have two schekels to rub together?

If we foot the entire bill (with our economy in its present state) what would that do to our country?

My guess is...DING!...GWB couldn't care less what it does to the economy. Why WOULD he care? It's not his money, and by the time the post-conflict terrorism starts to get really bad -- well, he'll be long gone, sippin' margaritas on some ranch.

We'll be footing the bill because the government will be borrowing like it's going out of style (recall the 1980s), while government taxes and services (except for military spending) are cut to the bone and the economy sputters along. Just yesterday the right-leaning but officially nonpartisan CBO issued a report saying that the deficit was already 15% HIGHER THAN ESTIMATED, and that's without the enactment of Bush's new tax plan OR excessive new homeland security funding OR the war costs!

With government service spending so severely hampered by the costs of the war, it would allow Bush to push through his privatization aims in areas like health care and social security. I see this as being all part of a larger, and very dangerous, disturbing picture. But it's like crying into the wind....

The other day Paul Wolfowitz, before a Senate panel, dismissed any talk of the war's costs. He then criticized General Eric Shinseki's estimates as grossly inflated. I would think Shinseki, as a decorated soldier and military leader, has a better idea of this than the desk-bound hawk Wolfowitz, but I could be wrong.

In sum, Ung, I don't think W. and his posse give one damn about the costs of this war. They are jonesing for it so badly it's going to happen no matter what. Britain only has so much to contribute; its finances, and public service situation, are shaky at best in many areas, from transportation to housing to the universities. Spain is rich, but California has a larger economy (well, California's economy alone is about on par with France). Bulgaria...why does their name even surface? The rest of richest nations of the world--Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Benelux countries, the Scandinavian countries, Italy--are not really signed on for this war. Saudi Arabia, another money pot, is going along with it, but it's doing so with one foot out the door. So we'll be funding this ourselves, and leaving that part of the world--and American taxpayers, especially those who are not milliionaires and thus won't benefit from Bush's estate tax-dividends tax-etc. cutting bonanza--to pick up, or rather pay for, the mess that ensues.

Click here to see a listing of the richest nations on earth by GPP and GDP/per capita. Spain is below Liechtenstein, Finland and Monaco. Bulgaria....

Another key point is this: we don't want to occupy Iraq for however long it takes to get it up and running. The possiblities for internecine strife there, between the ethnic groups, between Kurds and Iraqis, between the religous factions, are numerous. There are monarchists and socialists, republicans and people who would probably like to see Iraq follow Iran's lead and be run by clerics. It's really a mulligan's stew of competing interests. It is ALWAYS easier and better to have a range of countries--and in this case, especially Muslim countries--contributing to the rebuilding, so that the U.S. isn't forced to shoulder all the responsibility or costs. Realistically the U.S. could do both, though it would be a major strain. I haven't heard Bush call for any real sacrifices yet, which leads me to believe he 1) doesn't believe there will be any and 2) is afraid of doing so for fear of utterly scaring people out of stores, car showrooms, realty offices, etc.

On this morning's Today show, Snow, the new Treasury Secretary, refused to even answer whether he thought the cost of the war would be less than or more than $100 billion dollars (that's billion, with a "b"). If the administration has not even thought about how they are going to pay for the war, why are we having it again?

in senate testimony, the man who is arguably the chief architect of the whole Iraq campaign, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, refuted the estimate given by the army chief of staff, Gen. Shinseki. Shinseki had said the cost would run into the hundreds of billions. Wolfowitz kept insisting that "he had no idea how much it would cost" but also insisted that "the previous figure was too high" (aren't those two statements contradictory?)

He then went on to say it should not be too much because among other things "Iraq does not have a history of ethnic strife" (senate testimony) No ethnic strife???? what was that whole thing with the kurds then? a fight over what flavour ice cream to order?

we are still in Bosnia-Herzegovina. and that was nothing compared to Iraq.

the administration has given a directive to NOT give a quotable estimate of the cost for fear that it would cause loss of support for the military campaign

[ March 05, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

In answer to the question:

I would delete the words "a coalition". To answer it as is presupposes the answer to the question formed without it.

But taking the question as is, the reason we need a coalition is because it gives legitimacy to what has already been decided without one.

sportinlife. what you say is true. the administration has already decided on the course of action and the coalition is not needed except to legitimize that decision.

however, what I was trying to do was inject another angle that is not often discussed. we are all preoccupied with the "morally right or wrong" question. that is important, to be sure. But I also wanted to look at the fiscal need for a coalition of military allies and "partners in payment" as we surely can not afford the war on our own.

I think the chimp plans to pay for the war with more tax cuts.

LOL can you think of 2 worse nations to go to war with? Germany usually starts these things and after they have almost taken over all of europe we have to step in and end it... France would just surrender... HAHAHA, i thought it was funny.

I doubt anybody else is going to help us foot the bill for us this time. During the Gulf War, the Saudis were willing to ante up, but this time around, Iraq's neighbors no longer feel threatened by him.

I also think the cost of the war will be much less than the cost of the subsequent occupation. Destroying Iraq will be cheaper than rebuilding it.

If the question for this thread is whether we need a coalition to invade Iraq then the question of whether we need one to rebuild Iraq needs a thread of it's own.

I agree rebuilding would cost even more. There is no clear plan, nor real intention as I can percieve, for rebuilding beyond making it possible to exploit the oil resources.