Here is your bill

paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion
Click to expand...

and

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.
Click to expand...

link

wow, that is a lot of money.

I thought Democrats where supposed to be the big spenders, or is that only on frivolous things like health care and education.
 
paul_valaru said:
I thought Democrats where supposed to be the big spenders, or is that only on frivolous things like health care and education.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have education and health care if they weren't fighting this war, don't you know about them terrorists trying to nuke them?
 
As casualties and violence decline, the left's “we are losing” argument changes to "the financial costs." :rolleyes:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/14/intel-reports-saddam-could-hav/

The spectre of war with Saddam was a grave image-particularly if the claims of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Queda were correct. It was more than that though. Everyone knew that after 12 years of trying to make Saddam comply with the United Nations; not diplomacy, sanctions, blockades, sponsored coups, encouraged rebellions, assassination attempts, a partial invasion, infinite air strikes, or even entire bombing campaigns. Everyone knew it was going to take an invasion, and if he did have nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, then tens of thousands of Americans were going to die-probably a great many more.
Click to expand...


http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/malensek/11132007.htm

Diplomacy had been tried with Saddam and his regime for decades. It had almost always failed. Only when there was the credible threat of military force did the regime respond even partially to diplomatic efforts. On four separate occasions, the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations had sent troops to the Persian Gulf in preparation for invading Iraq. There had been three missile attacks on Saddam’s regime, four large scale air bombings, two on-going air supremacy operations controlling the airspace above Saddam’s regime, and a naval blockade (sanctioned by the UN). All of these efforts only managed to get minor concessions from Saddam, and after eleven years the dangerous question of whether or not the dictatorial regime with ties to Al Qaeda still had weapons of mass destruction; weapons capable of being given to Al Qaeda and used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans in a deniable, proxy, terrorist attack that would benefit Saddam and Al Qaeda without being traced back to Saddam and thus retaliation by the United States (recall that even today, many people refuse to recognize and connect the American war with Saddam on the September 11, 2001 attacks).
Click to expand...
 
you're not losing, you've lost. It's cost an unbelievable sum, the reputation on the world stage is now dirt. Your dollar is devalued. The split over this war has ground your government to a halt, where no-one can get anything done because they hold to different beliefs about this war, and it is overshadowing any other agendas. Whether you "win" or "lose" in Iraq is almost moot because the battle at home is being lost.
 
paul_valaru said:
you're not losing, you've lost. It's cost an unbelievable sum, the reputation on the world stage is now dirt. Your dollar is devalued. The split over this war has ground your government to a halt, where no-one can get anything done because they hold to different beliefs about this war, and it is overshadowing any other agendas. Whether you "win" or "lose" in Iraq is almost moot because the battle at home is being lost.
Click to expand...

We've not lost until we are all dead.
 
To me, everything, to others, nothing. I know I would give my life for my country. I also know I would not give my life for another country.
 
Cerise said:
As casualties and violence decline, the left's “we are losing” argument changes to "the financial costs." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

funny but i seem to recall being bitchy about the funding issue from day one. but then i guess i'm not "the left," but, rather, "the taxpayer."
 
paul_valaru said:
you're not losing, you've lost. It's cost an unbelievable sum, the reputation on the world stage is now dirt. Your dollar is devalued. The split over this war has ground your government to a halt, where no-one can get anything done because they hold to different beliefs about this war, and it is overshadowing any other agendas. Whether you "win" or "lose" in Iraq is almost moot because the battle at home is being lost.
Click to expand...

Nothing is lost. Try someone besides Katie Couric for news.

War ain't cheap, especially when all your "allies" bail out as soon as hands start getting dirty. Too easy to sit back and point fingers than pitch in and help I suppose. 'SOK though. We'll do it. Again.

Economics 101. Nothing is permanent.

Government grinds itself to a halt, particularly when the majority is occupied by cowards who are more interested in conducting investigations than conducting business. On that note, did we ever find out whether The Undertaker is poppin' roids or not? I know I won't sleep well at night until Pelosi gets to the bottom of THAT pressing issue...

And why is it that foreigners are so concerned about our government in the first place?

I don't agree with everything the current administration undergoes. Far from it. But regardless of who is sitting in the chair, that is our elected leader in a time of war. I consider it my duty to refrain from tearing him/her down unless and until those actions are clearly detrimental to the nation's best interests. We are nowhere near that line at this time. Unless one is mentally ill with liberalism. In which case, said person needs medication and therapy, thus rendering their opinions next to useless in all practical matters. It's standard treatment for the delusional.

Lastly, I don't recall US foreign policy being a popularity contest. I missed the day in school when it was explained that the leaders and/or citizens of other countries held one iota of relevence to how this nation conducts its affairs. Particularly when said nation jumps through its own asshole to appear as an ally, then backs out every time the situation becomes inconvenient. Either suck up to the schoolyard bully, knock him off his perch, or stay out of his way. If we are to be perceived as the bully, then I guess we get to play the role both ways, eh? Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way and quit yer bitchin about how someone else leads.

Let the belly aching commence in three...two...one...
 
War ain't cheap, especially when all your "allies" bail out as soon as hands start getting dirty. Too easy to sit back and point fingers than pitch in and help I suppose. 'SOK though. We'll do it. Again.
Click to expand...

It wasn't people backing out, it was the US jumping the queue.

Government grinds itself to a halt, particularly when the majority is occupied by cowards who are more interested in conducting investigations than conducting business. On that note, did we ever find out whether The Undertaker is poppin' roids or not? I know I won't sleep well at night until Pelosi gets to the bottom of THAT pressing issue...
Click to expand...

can't argue there

And why is it that foreigners are so concerned about our government in the first place?
Click to expand...

Why is your country so concerned about other governments?

I missed the day in school when it was explained that the leaders and/or citizens of other countries held one iota of relevence to how this nation conducts its affairs.
Click to expand...

you know, a lot of people think that same thing, Canadians, Europeans Afgans, Iraqis, Iranians...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
And why is it that foreigners are so concerned about our government in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because the global economy is completely dependent on the US economy, SnP. And no matter how you look at it, the people currently in power and the people with any likely possibility of gaining power in the US (Republicans, Democrats, whatever) are clearly only interested in personal aggrandizement regardless of what it does to the economy, national or global. In other words, if the US collapses everybody's fucked. Of course they're concerned.
 
Then it occurs to me that just maybe they'd lend a hand instead of bailing out. Just me I guess.

As to those in power, I certainly afree that personal agendas have always and will continue to play a large role. It's called human nature.

If I pledge my support to a thing, be it a scheme of government, a business, a philosophy, whatever, I do so willing to accept the good as well as the not so hot. I don't support every endeavor of the current administration, but when that administration finds itself embroiled in a military conflict in which people far braver than I are laying down their lives to protect me I just can't help but feel some sense of loyalty to those in command, regardless of other items on the plate. If Klinton were still sitting in the chair during this conflict and were he making the same decisions Bush is making, I'd support him despite his despicable personal habits. If and when another occupies the chair, so long as we have soldiers in harm's way I will support whoever sits there regardless of other policies I may disagree with, again so long as those decisions are in the best interest of our well being. If Bush announces tomorrow that all US forces in the middle east are to begin raping and pillaging wantonly while concurrently attempting to overthrow the duly elected leadership of Iraq in favor of installing Jeb bush as the president of Iraq, my support will be withdrawn. I don't see it happening.

I guess different people define patriotism differently. Blind allegiance is no less desirable than aid and comfort for the enemy in my book. If, for example, Guam were to emerge as the primary military presence in that region, I also wouldn't sit back and critisize their every move...cuz it ain't me or mine doing it. Just one of my more adorable quirks I reckon.
 
paul_valaru said:
It wasn't people backing out, it was the US jumping the queue.
Click to expand...

Some see it that way, others don't. The Iraqi people seem to be rather in favor of what has been done though, and I'll take their opinion over many others.

Why is your country so concerned about other governments?
Click to expand...

Guess you'd have to ask Bush that question. Make sure he knows your citizenship status though, I think he deserves that much info.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Some see it that way, others don't. The Iraqi people seem to be rather in favor of what has been done though, and I'll take their opinion over many others.
Click to expand...

BAGHDAD, May 10 -- A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels.
Click to expand...
Hello?????
BAGHDAD, May 10
Click to expand...

Linkage
 
2minkey said:
funny but i seem to recall being bitchy about the funding issue from day one. but then i guess i'm not "the left," but, rather, "the taxpayer."
Click to expand...

No shit. I've been bitching about the cost and my tax dollars for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top