During a debate in October, GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann stated that she believed that Libya and Iraq should pay the United States for its war efforts in those two countries. Her statement was met with applause, though some of her fellow candidates expressed concern with her message.
Recently Bachmann clarified and confirmed her idea, but added that not only should Iraq pay for the war efforts, but that it should also pay for each American life lost—to the tune of several million dollars per. In a morning interview with David Gregory, moderator of Meet the Press, Bachmann reaffirmed her rather odd stance on what she believes Iraq should pay.
The idea of an invaded nation being asked to give monetary compensation is nothing new. Back in June, California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher stated on Libya: "There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them."
Granted, the situation in Libya was different from the one in Iraq. However, for Iraq, there are no excuses. The very basis for the war itself has been called into question over the years by key figures in the United States, and it has been regarded as an unpopular decision to say the least. To say that Iraq should pay the United States for invading their country is akin to burning down your neighbor's house, then asking them to pay you for the price of the matches and any damages your house suffered as a result.
Some may argue that the war had the unintended benefit of throwing out a dangerous dictator, and there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. But Iraq did not ask that the US bomb their cities and act in ways that killed many innocents. Some may discuss the benefits all they wish, but at the same time, a country must take responsibility for its actions. The United States is not the world's constable, and to suggest that it ask those it invades to repay it exorbitant amounts of money is only adding insult to a very serious injury.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 45
I believe this election, every candidate should be measured as to their fitness to become Commander in Chief. Remember, the President has no power to increase or lower taxes. The President has no power in overhauling Tax Code structure. The only true power the President solely has authority over is as Commander in Chief.
"the President has no power to increase or lower taxes. The President has no power in overhauling Tax Code structure. The only true power the President solely has authority over is as Commander in Chief."
that used to be true - but over the last 50 years or so, the potus has stolen more and more power.
and this one, is the grand champion.
when he couldnt get cap and trade passed with its new tax - he simply gave a directive to the epa, and did it anyway. so more money to the epa - a government entity - but lie about it and not call it a tax.
that is just the most shining example.
the office of the potus, needs to be the way it was intended, and not how it has been abused and perverted for many many decades.
and we need a strong congress to do that.
I'm more worried about her self hating gay husband's fitness to be commander in chief. Bachmann's religious beliefs require that she submit to her husband, so if she's elected as president her husband is essentially the real president.
lets lay the blame where it belongs - those are the lies told to bush and cheney and all of congress ....... that they believed.
including obama.
bush et al were gullible which is bad enough already!
so who was behindf it - the illuminatti, the masons, skull and bones, dr doom, the joker?
It's this type of ignorance that gave us a Bush presidency, and at its worse allowed the illegal invasion of Iraq.
those are the lies told to bush and cheney and all of congress
What!? WHO told these lies to Congress/Bush/Cheney? Where did you lay blame? Also, Obama wasn't in the Senate when they voted on the Iraq war.
Anyway...
First of all, Bush/Cheney were NOT duped into the whole WMDs lie; they were the ringleaders. What Cynthia stated isn't a conspiracy theory; it's fact. You want to know who's behind it? Look up The Vulcans. Or PNAC (Project for a New American Century) This group included Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld among others.
This group, as early as 1997, was calling for the invasion of Iraq, citing Saddams possesion of WMDs. These men were friends to Bush jr, then advisors during his campaign, and after his "election" they received key positions in his administration. Bush surrounded himself with these "war hawks" carried out their doctrine (while yelling nonstop about the threat that Saddam posed) and somehow Bush and Cheney were the ones that were duped? By your explanation, THEY were responsible for lying to THEMSELVES.
With all the books, and info that has been written by now, it's surprising that anyone would still believe that Bush apologist nonsense "Hey, all of Congress was duped also..."
There's a couple of books I could recommend that look at what really happened leading up to Bush' quest to rid the world of WMDs. I'm guessing you'll probably dismiss them all as just "liberal propaganda", but I can recommend "The Way of the World", it's pretty interesting and stays mostly in the middle. The book does a good job of explaining the events leading up to the Iraq war, and who was behind it.
Don't expect a twist ending.
well first - "who told the lies" is on the shoulders of the intelligence comunity - who is to blame? bush, cheney, congress and the un for believing it!
altho, just because wmd's were not found, does not mean there were no attempts, successful or otherwise, to get them.
it is possible they simply were not found - and that would be the fault of bush also. i mean do you really believe what hussein said????
you, like many on the left, immediately assume that i loved bush - there is no such feeling for me, of him.
i thought then and now, that he is a doofus, and made a ton of bad decisions.
but - as you decide to know what was in my mind, as well as their minds, and how they thought, and why they did what they did, it would be a waste of my time to debate you - your mind is like a steel trap - rusted shut.
i have read many of those books, and my independant conclusion is, i can not know for certain, who knew what and when, nor can i discern why they believed the advisors.
so by all means 'oh enlightened one' tell me the absolute truth - use your psychic abilities to let me know who thought what, when, and who told them what they believed, so i will no longer wonder!
That was my point.
Contrary to your disbelief of Cynthias comment above, Bush/Cheney/Rummsfeld had it in their intentions to invade Iraq.
i mean do you really believe what hussein said????
Nope, but Hussein was telling the truth, Bush wasn't.
You might not be a Bush lover, but your arguments are those of a Bush apologist, trying to defend his actions as simply "He didn't know". Also Bush wasn't just a "doofus", he IS a war criminal.
And one doesn't need to be a psychic to know about the crimes commited by the previous administration, there are dozens of books, and hundreds of documents that have been released that can tell you "who thought what, when, and who told them what they believed".
One needn't be 'enlightened' to learn these things, but I can see why you would think so...
I saw on the news awhile back that a General that was in the Baath' party said, that Saddam did have those weapons. THis man claims that they drove some of them to Damascus and dumped some into the ocean... He even described what they had wrapped them in.. I am going to have to see if I cant find out more on this because you never hear anything more about him....
And what about the stability you noted? During the years S. Hussein was in charge we saw Iraq fight a long war with Iran, invade Kuwait, lob missiles at Israel, and repeatedly threaten Saudi Arabia.
The words you used - "the region was much more stable" - are really puzzling. Even if S. Hussein remained in power the region would still be a mess. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict would still exist. The Kurds and the Turks would still be at odds. And Lebanon would still be unstable because of the roles Syria and Iran play there, the fact that Palestinians have used parts of that country as a sanctuary, and the volatile mix of groups that live in that country; you have Shiites Muslims who do not love Sunni Muslims, Druze Muslims who are regarded as heretics by the two main Muslim sects, and Christians who back in the days of Lebanon's civil war formed militias and spent their time killing Muslims.
Iraq was contained at a cost to us of a minimal $40000000 a year, without one US military boot on their soil. While religious animosities still simmered, they were effectively tamped down enough so that Iraq was a functioning, primarily secular country with educational opportunities for women, a robust internal business environment and a stable diplomatic situation for most of the world.
Removing Hussein has done nothing to mitigate the conflicts you mentioned, and made the entire region less stable. We removed Iran's primary counterbalance, and made the entire region a terrorist training ground with live fire US targets.
Most of the middle east is in a state of constant religious and ethnic conflict, America (Bush) had no reason to want to get involved in there (OIL).
And the fact is simply that Iraq, for all its problems, was a lot more stable before Bush decided to invade.
And the illegal invasion of Iraq did nothing for the lives of everyday Iraqis except make them much worse.
Man, I wish someone would lower the bridge, someone let all the trolls out again.
You're talking out your a**, again.
The Nazi's were far from socialists. And even members of their own regime admitted it.
"William L. Shirer in THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH noted that there was little or no socialism in "National Socialism".
Thyssen (I PAID HITLER and many others) pointed out that the "marriage" of business and the National Socialist Party, despite Hitler's contempt for aristocracy and business in general, guaranteed high profits for businesses. Ironically, his steel company was seized over what amounted to a personal hassle with the hierarchy, and handed over for administration and profit to Krupp/von Bohlen, rather than being "nationalized" in the pure sense, which is what would've happened in a left wing state.
Albert Speer, the Third Reich's last Armaments Minister, in INSIDE THE THIRD REICH makes clear that he had great difficulty controlling fiefdoms and bailiwicks of various private firms well into 1944, when the war was already going to pieces. He also notes the privatization of all the formerly state-owned arsenals, even the huge ones at Suhl, Spandau, and Amberg (13 in all!).
Public education, of course, had been one of the key features of all organized states since Roman times. And National Public Health in Germany was enacted 1871-83, before Hitler was BORN, by the Bismarck government.
Hitler's state enacted NO new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former "loafers" to the death or work camps. Almost none qualified for military service, as the Weimar Republic had always claimed.
Hitler, of course, much like today's conservatives, attacked the Weimar government as "intrusive" and "socialist", and he HATED "Bolshevism" and "social democrats" (socialists), and proclaimed it loudly on almost every page of MEIN KAMPF.
Bullock, Toland, Heisler, and hundreds of others verify that there was no nationalization in Nazi Germany, and indeed, the general trend was in the other direction. Railroads were amalgamated and standardized for military purposes, but this had been a plan for at least 80 years!
Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.): "We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."
Here's the deal: You can hear LOTS of things, especially if listening to clowns. But every scholar clearly identifies the Nazis with the right wing, and no one serious does NOT identify them with the reactionary right wing. All the historians agree.
The inclusion of the "s" word was a clumsy but sometimes convenient leftover from a merger well described in the literature. They even used it, short term, through tracts written by the Strasser brothers, to con working men into acquiescing to the movement. For their leftist-sounding pamphlets, the Strassers were murdered. And anyone who suggested in Germany, once they took power, that Nazis were "progressive" or "leftists" would've been killed for his statement.
It's the scholarship that counts. Drunks in bars and idiots spewing madness in chat rooms are not sources of ANY kind! And the same applied to uncredentialed and unportfolioed so-called "pundits" who claim Nazis were "progressive" or "liberal", which is a huge, undocumented, insidious, and criminal lie.
No, Hitler and the Nazis were about as far from "socialists" as it is possible to be.
Source(s):
All the valid sources, to include the witnesses, participants, victims, scholars, observers, and anyone who has actually studied the subject matter."
This doesn't reflect on the "left" or "right" wing ideology of another country 70 years later though...