The Greatest Cash Theft of All Time

[Mindy]

The man Congress put in charge of auditing the billions of dollars dumped on Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled has told the Los Angels Times he can't rule out the possibility that $6.6 billion in cash sent from the U.S. was stolen.

Special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen told the Times the missing money may represent "the largest theft of funds in national history."

It was not, it is crucial to note here, U.S. tax-payer dollars which have gone missing in Iraq. The money came from a special fund set up by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with Iraq's own money -- funds which were withheld from the nation during a decade of harsh economic sanctions under Saddam.

Now, and here's the real kicker, Iraq wants it's money back. The Los Angeles Times says some officials in Baghdad have threatened to take the U.S. government to court to reclaim the missing loot. The last known holder of the funds, before they mysteriously disappeared into the dusty oblivion of post-war Iraq, was the U.S. government.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20070981-503543.html#ixzz1Pen86WJz

This is yet another reason these wars should be ended. They're bleeding this country to death, most importantly our military but secondly our economy as well.

[Captain Obvious]

Welcome to the forum. Mindy.

In reply to your post, I don't think the wars can be ended so easily. I see BO and his cronies are hinting at negotiating with al Qaida which is a mistake in my opinion. You do not negotiate with rabid, soulless animals, you kill them. This is a group - or more precisely a faction of groups who's main purpose is to eliminate western culture.

How do you engage compromise with that mindset?

You can also add the corruption in Afghanistan while you're at it - how many millions/billions goes to greased palms? The wheels of Afghani society run on cash I understand.

[Mindy]

Thanks for the welcome.

Yeah, I guess you can tell I am against the wars. I think the negotiations are a joke really, since no one can say with any certainty who is Al Queda, who is Taliban, and even if you do get one of those leaders to the table they won't be speaking for all their fellow terrorists.

These wars can be ended easily by bringing the troops home and using that manpower and money to defend our borders and focus on illegal border crossing. No one in Iraq or Afghanistan can touch us from there, and our presence only adds to recruiting efforts. Bin Laden's strategy was to draw the US into a never-ending war and bleed it to death, just like the USSR in Afghanistan. It's working. Look, let's not be silly, there is big money in government contracts for these wars and that is why they are continuing. People are getting rich, that's the number one reason they continue. It all comes down to money.

[Captain Obvious]

There's huge costs involved with these wars. Most of our deficit is born from military costs.

I believe Iraq was a complete mistake, we should never have gone into Iraq.

Afghanistan was almost unavoidable. Focusing on Afghanistan and leaving Saddam alone would have been the better move, but that's all hindsight now.

Fact is, we're there. Pulling out at this point can be a dangerous move on a number of levels.

[Mindy]

OK, if you argue we should stay, what should we be doing? What goals do we have? Should we never leave? I'm glad Bin Laden got killed, but there will always be another to take the place as the head of the snake. If INS and what is now Homeland Security were doing their job, 9/11 would have never happened. I for one don't feel as though our security at home is any better than it was. Our borders are a joke and cargo containers in ports still go uninspected. We're sitting ducks.

[Captain Obvious]

The goal should be to eliminate Afghanistan as a viable refuge for terrorists.

It should not be a unilateral goal either, but it seems to be.

Considering much of al Quaida is refuge in Pakistan, a so-called "ally" of ours, I'm not sure this is a goal that we want to see through ourselves.

Your argument makes some sense, but the consequences of leaving Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban could cost a lot more in the long run.

[Mindy]

"The goal should be to eliminate Afghanistan as a viable refuge for terrorists."

That's impossible, due to both the political climate and the geography. No one has ever been able to police Afghanistan. The USSR tried a lot harder than we have and they failed miserably, even with more man power, closer proximity, and more money.

Pakistan is the real threat, I guess we agree. It is less stable now than it was before we invaded Afghanistan, and in fact our actions drove a large number of Al Queda there. That was not a smart move for national security.

[Captain Obvious]

How is it impossible?

It's not a viable refuge now, It was 10 years ago.

The issue is cost - there is a high cost to this project. The other issue is consequences, what are they if it returns to a lawless refuge for terrorists?

[Mindy]

It's still a viable refuge. The biggest reason is the geography. Tons of caves and mountains. It's not possible to cover it all. Whether we leave ten years from now or today, that land will not change.

[GRUMPY]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....

[Mindy]

You mean like the five unconstitutional wars we're currently waging? Drugs, terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...there will probably be more soon.

[GRUMPY]

You mean like the five unconstitutional wars we're currently waging? Drugs, terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...there will probably be more soon.

like it or not congress approved the use of force in both afghanistan and iraq.....libya is clearly in violation of the constitution....yemen, is a coin toss but our actions there seem to have escalated to the point that an explanation before congress is warrented.....as for the war on drugs and the war on terror these are more catch phrases than anything else....one could argue that aspects of the patriot act violate the constitution, although i would respond by saying that the constitution is not a suicide pact and that with regard to terrorist threats we need to develop a new and unique legal tool box, further the constitution in noway applies to foreign subjects on foreign soil or anywhere else for that matter....drugs, that application of the commerce act is a distortion and federal drug law outside of the importation of drugs into the united states is a federal over reach.....

[Mindy]

Well, we agree that Congress doesn't respect the constitution. Why don't we as a country declare war any longer? Is it enough for Congress to approve military action? What if the reasons for engaging have been proven to be false? It seems to me we've gone from needing a declaration of war to military engagement with congressional approval as an afterthought to this new era where now the POTUS can act initiate acts of war with no congressional oversight what so ever (I'm talking about Obama and Libya here). It seems like there's a trend here. While one could make the argument Libya is 'humanitarian' I don't buy it...there are plenty of other hotspots in the Middle East with unrest where we're not as actively involved. I remain unconvinced any of this is helping our national security, but I can see corporations are getting filthy rich. Just check out the correlation between Obama's big donors and the contracts they've received from the federal government.

[GRUMPY]

Well, we agree that Congress doesn't respect the constitution. Why don't we as a country declare war any longer? Is it enough for Congress to approve military action? What if the reasons for engaging have been proven to be false? It seems to me we've gone from needing a declaration of war to military engagement with congressional approval as an afterthought to this new era where now the POTUS can act initiate acts of war with no congressional oversight what so ever (I'm talking about Obama and Libya here). It seems like there's a trend here. While one could make the argument Libya is 'humanitarian' I don't buy it...there are plenty of other hotspots in the Middle East with unrest where we're not as actively involved. I remain unconvinced any of this is helping our national security, but I can see corporations are getting filthy rich. Just check out the correlation between Obama's big donors and the contracts they've received from the federal government.

difficult to declare war against entities that are not states and you do want the cc to react quickly to clear and present dangers....the seeds for this have been planted a long time ago....korea, vn, the balkins......our operations in libya have nothing to do with corporations getting rich or any plausible national security argument....this was bo getting beat up and looking weak in the media regarding his helter skelter middle east lack of policy and the gals in the admin brow beating him in to doing something in libya....remember gates was in i think germany when we jumped and admitted that things were done on the fly.....

[spunkloaf]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....


But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

[GRUMPY]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....


But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

spunk maintaining the military and engaging in war when authorized are within the constitutional mandates of govt.....social welfare is not.

[spunkloaf]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....


But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

spunk maintaining the military and engaging in war when authorized are within the constitutional mandates of govt.....social welfare is not.


The constitution remains pretty vague about both issues, actually.

[GRUMPY]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....


But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

spunk maintaining the military and engaging in war when authorized are within the constitutional mandates of govt.....social welfare is not.


The constitution remains pretty vague about both issues, actually.

no spunk the constitution is not vague on these issues....maintaining the military is clearly the responsibility of the federal govt and just as clearly is no mandate within the constitution for ss, medicare, medicaid or any other social welfare program....politicians seek to obscure the meaning and intent of the framers to buy your vote and remain in power by keeping dependent/addicted to the govt teet....

[spunkloaf]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....


But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

spunk maintaining the military and engaging in war when authorized are within the constitutional mandates of govt.....social welfare is not.


The constitution remains pretty vague about both issues, actually.

no spunk the constitution is not vague on these issues....maintaining the military is clearly the responsibility of the federal govt and just as clearly is no mandate within the constitution for ss, medicare, medicaid or any other social welfare program....politicians seek to obscure the meaning and intent of the framers to buy your vote and remain in power by keeping dependent/addicted to the govt teet....

The constitution makes mention of delegating military power and providing for the general welfare of the people. You are correct, it says nothing about ss, medicare or medicaid.

[GRUMPY]

six billion dollars or so....this is chump change.....attach a number to the amount of tax payer money that has been seized by the govt to finance programs for which no constitutional mandate exists.....

jeez, sometimes you slay me.....article one, section eight read and think please.....the phrase general welfare is not standing alone.....
But then again, those dollars were probably "seized" based on arguments for how much money we spend on war rather than welfare.

spunk maintaining the military and engaging in war when authorized are within the constitutional mandates of govt.....social welfare is not.


The constitution remains pretty vague about both issues, actually.

no spunk the constitution is not vague on these issues....maintaining the military is clearly the responsibility of the federal govt and just as clearly is no mandate within the constitution for ss, medicare, medicaid or any other social welfare program....politicians seek to obscure the meaning and intent of the framers to buy your vote and remain in power by keeping dependent/addicted to the govt teet....

The constitution makes mention of delegating military power and providing for the general welfare of the people. You are correct, it says nothing about ss, medicare or medicaid.

[DGUtley]

I think the Covid plunder tops this...