Seems Kerry was right...during the election he said it was going to cost more then 200 billion...If I recall, the Rebuplicans said he was crazy.

They were right. It is coasting 100 billion more(and counting)

Let the excuses begin.


WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=3&u=/ap/20050421/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_spending

Better spent on the effort then on the pork barrel projects.

wasn't aware i faught in a "lill' war" seemed pretty big to me:p

wasn't aware i faught in a "lill' war" seemed pretty big to me:p


Seemed pretty big to me too, and I wasnt there. Oh yea, If I havent already said it, thanks, from me and all those who take pride in the effort.

hehe no problem:D ....honestly best thanks i got was from the Iraqi's people, very friednly.

hmmm now i shoudl really go write to my friends who are overseas now that i have them fresh in my mind:D have a great night all (or day depending on where you are;))

Here's to those putting themselves in harms way to protect us. Come back safely, everyone.

http://img165.echo.cx/img165/4064/beerchug3wd.gif

Yes...we all owe a big debt to our military men and women. No doubt about that.

But back on topic, if we can....the Democrates were right...the Rebublicans lied about the cost of the war.


Now, do the results justify the means? (lying, fake intellagence and the like)

What could 300 billion have done here at home?

SS? feeding the hungry? social and economic stimulas package? Education?

It's not like $300B "extra"....You don't know how gov't budgets work, do ya?

:beer: to those standing in harms way, to give voice to the voiceless....

Yes...we all owe a big debt to our military men and women. No doubt about that.

But back on topic, if we can....the Democrates were right...the Rebublicans lied about the cost of the war.


Now, do the results justify the means? (lying, fake intellagence and the like)

What could 300 billion have done here at home?

SS? feeding the hungry? social and economic stimulas package? Education?

I have no idea why you would bring up a subject like this unless you want to be flamed from the "other side" as well. Ok let's say someone threw out a figure and the whole Republican party lied to the human race. What's there to talk about? Let's talk about getting our troops home instead of rambling about the cost of the war. Talk about beating a dead horse. I'm a Republican and I just don't have the urge to start a thread about something idiotic a Democrat did the other day.

Yes...we all owe a big debt to our military men and women. No doubt about that.

But back on topic, if we can....the Democrates were right...the Rebublicans lied about the cost of the war.


Now, do the results justify the means? (lying, fake intellagence and the like)

What could 300 billion have done here at home?

SS? feeding the hungry? social and economic stimulas package? Education?


Whats the money value of possible lives lost had Saddams regime been allowed to grow and spread? No doubt 300 billion could have done a lot of good here at home, but no one knows what a powerful enemy Iraq could have cost us in the future.

I'd have to say that this WW3 deal is more than we spent on WW2 + WW1 + Civil war + a bunch of feuds here and there. But I would also say that the USA has the most beautiful women!

Yes..I do know a little about how gov't works...just a tiny little bit. Why do people never take the time to find out about the people they are going to attack? really...

But I am going off track.

Let me educate you...free of charge. It is "extra..." We do not earmark 300 billion into the "just in case we go to war" fund. We have to divert, cut programs, and borrow to raise it...which is why we are running in the red, instead of the black. (Yes yes, it is more complicated then that...but I have to put it plainly....the concepts are too much for some if I use more then one syllable words :rolleyes: )

By the way...how come a comment about the war is treated like an attack on the military? The military does not make the call...the president did. That is why it is so cool to be a politician..you get to declare war, but not put yourself at risk!

Is it to divert attention from the real problem....that we were lied too?

Oh, and just to head off the attacks that are coming, usr that little search feature...see how I represent vetrens free of charge? :rolleyes:

I have no idea why you would bring up a subject like this unless you want to be flamed from the "other side" as well. Ok let's say someone threw out a figure and the whole Republican party lied to the human race. What's there to talk about? Let's talk about getting our troops home instead of rambling about the cost of the war. Talk about beating a dead horse. I'm a Republican and I just don't have the urge to start a thread about something idiotic a Democrat did the other day.


Please...find me a 300 billion democratic snafu...not to mention the dead or wounded.

I'd have to say that this WW3 deal is more than we spent on WW2 + WW1 + Civil war + a bunch of feuds here and there. But I would also say that the USA has the most beautiful women!
um yea..inflation...i'm sure if ou adjust the income i'm sure it's no ware near wha we spent on those wars...especially WWII. that was hela exspensive.

Whats the money value of possible lives lost had Saddams regime been allowed to grow and spread? No doubt 300 billion could have done a lot of good here at home, but no one knows what a powerful enemy Iraq could have cost us in the future.


Ah, but we can say that about Iran, North korea, Syria, egypt, Saudi arabia, ect...shall we invade them all? That is never a good cause to go to war...every country is a potential threat. It is the clear and present, active threats that we should go after...like a little country that did attack us..called....Saudi Arabia!!

Again, back on topic...300 billion and counting. Kerry was right. The pres lied to us about the cost. now, how do we justify it?

Here's to those putting themselves in harms way to protect us. Come back safely, everyone.

http://img165.echo.cx/img165/4064/beerchug3wd.gif


How was your cali trip? have you gone yet?

Why all this focus on "lying?" If we would just consider it a "nuance" then I guess the Democrats would support it. Times change. Situations change. Our troops are there. If it costs a bit more to get the job done, then we'll get it done somehow.

Or would you rather put our troops at risk by not giving them what they need? Now that would truly be hypocritical. Kerry lost, get over it. Let's make our country stronger rather than trying to tear it apart.

How was your cali trip? have you gone yet?Next week. :D

I live in Jacksonville, Fl. I am surrounded by military people of all shapes and sizes. They are all proud of their fellow soldiers efforts (as they should be), but hardly any of them see the point in killing poor people who can't defend themselves in a conventional manner and who pose no real threat to our country.

A big war? Surely you jest? They had no ships or aircraft, and the weapons they do have are virtually useless. M1A2 or a T55?

Ah, but we can say that about Iran, North korea, Syria, egypt, Saudi arabia, ect...shall we invade them all? That is never a good cause to go to war...every country is a potential threat. It is the clear and present, active threats that we should go after...like a little country that did attack us..called....Saudi Arabia!!

Again, back on topic...300 billion and counting. Kerry was right. The pres lied to us about the cost. now, how do we justify it?

wouldnt quite call it a lie, just an under-estimation of the costs. no one, including OUR great leader thought that Iraq would be as drawn out as it has been. No one except GOD himself could have known that.

On another note, Kerry did make a good guess, but I wonder if he would have jumped sides again had the cost been what Bush said it was. It is a trait of his afterall.

I always hear people stating the costs of war -- can someone itemize these things? I bet if someone were to itemize the cost of "war" versus the cost of rebuilding, training, etc. the 300billion might be a bit less.

A big war? Surely you jest? They had no ships or aircraft, and the weapons they do have are virtually useless.Tell that to the families of those KIA or injured.

Reminds me of the definitions of comedy and tragedy. Comedy is when you hit your finger with a hammer. Tragedy is when I hit mine.

Dammit klegg, I have to prepare for a speech I'm giving tomorrow morning. Nobody has posted anything much worth commenting on all day, and you come up with this right when I'm finally waking up. :mad: :D

I live in Jacksonville, Fl. I am surrounded by military people of all shapes and sizes. They are all proud of their fellow soldiers efforts (as they should be), but hardly any of them see the point in killing poor people who can't defend themselves in a conventional manner and who pose no real threat to our country.

A big war? Surely you jest? They had no ships or aircraft, and the weapons they do have are virtually useless. M1A2 or a T55?

those useless weapons killed U.S. soldiers!

also any war is a BIG war, especially when half the country is focused on the value of dollars and cents.

Tell that to the families of those KIA or injured.

Reminds me of the definitions of comedy and tragedy. Comedy is when you hit your finger with a hammer. Tragedy is when I hit mine.

How is that relative to what I said? Some of my best firends are fighting your war as we type, and two of them will never come home. I work at the VA and veterans rehab center on a weekly basis. I would like to see you come tell them how wonderful an idea this war was.

Stop being jerks...and throwing around fallacies. Relative to our weapons systems, the enemy might as well have sticks. That is not the point, however. Consider the reason our soldiers are there in the first place, then consider your justification of our presidents miscalculations.

when I first got the RX-8, i'd ask dudes what i'd spent. "Oh, man, the trust fund kicked in, $40 grand -easy" Then I let 'em in on the big secret. This threads on spending money, right? We, as a people, know money. Someone here thinks we got ripped off somehow. Who got the money we spent? Most of it came back to us, homies! Get it? Plus we did a really nobel thing for Iraqis everywhere and the world too. No worries!

when I first got the RX-8, i'd ask dudes what i'd spent. "Oh, man, the trust fund kicked in, $40 grand -easy" Then I let 'em in on the big secret. This threads on spending money, right? We, as a people, know money. Someone here thinks we got ripped off somehow. Who got the money we spent? Most of it came back to us, homies! Get it? Plus we did a really nobel thing for Iraqis everywhere and the world too. No worries!

right you are! :D

Greenspan Warns Congress on Defecit Danger

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050421152509990036

WASHINGTON (April 21) - Bloated budget deficits pose a danger to the nation's long-term economic health, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned anew Thursday. He issued a fresh call to policy-makers to move swiftly to put the government's fiscal house in order.

Greenspan only very briefly touched on the economy's current performance, saying ''activity appears to be expanding at a reasonably good pace,'' an assessment he has made repeatedly this year.

His comments to the Senate Budget Committee came as some private economists are concerned about the extent to which high energy prices will crimp economic activity.

Responding to questions, Greenspan suggested he is not concerned about the U.S. economy falling into a period of ''stagflation'' - the worrisome combination of rising inflation and slower economic growth. ''It certainly doesn't seem that way,'' he said.

Greenspan also said China ''should be moving sooner rather than later'' to overhaul it currency system, which U.S. manufacturers contend hurts sales and has contributed to job losses.

The United States has been pressing China to stop directly linking the yuan to the dollar. Treasury Secretary John Snow, in recent days, said Beijing - having taken a number of steps to prepare for such a change - is now ready to take the move. China has indicated it needs more time.

On the fiscal front, Greenspan said the persistence of swollen budget deficits in the years ahead ''would cause the economy to stagnate or worse'' unless the situation is reversed.


"The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years."
-Alan Greenspan

The budget deficit is a problem because it is projected to rise significantly as the first of 78 million baby boomers start to retire in 2008.

Last year, the government produced a budget deficit of $412 billion, a record in dollar terms. The deficit this year is projected to shatter that record, coming in at an estimated $427 billion.

Greenspan's call for fiscal prudence touched a nerve with Democrats who still sting from Greenspan's endorsement of President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. It was proposed at a time when the government was expecting a decade of budget surpluses, which didn't materialize.

''I was wrong like everybody else on the issue of surpluses,'' Greenspan said.

In 2001, Greenspan said the tax cut should be accompanied by a trigger mechanism that would rescind the tax cut in later years if economic forecasts changed. The Fed chief said it was ''frankly unfair'' for people not to remember that point.

''I think it is fair to consider how your message would be taken,'' said Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, recalling the 2001 tax-cut endorsement. ''It clearly was taken in the way that I have suggested in giving the green light.''

Democrats mostly blame the growing budget deficits on President Bush's big tax cuts, which they contend mainly benefited the wealthy. Republicans credited the tax cuts with helping the economy rebound from the 2001 recession. The costs of the tax cuts along with paying for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting terrorism at home have led to the deficits, they say.

Persistently large budget deficits threaten the economy because they can push up interest rates for consumers and businesses. Higher borrowing costs would weigh on consumers' and businesses' willingness to spend and invest - two important forces that keep the economy going. Rising interest rates also would slow growth in the housing market, Greenspan said.

And, growing budget shortfalls would force the government to borrow more to finance those deficits.

''The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years,'' Greenspan said.

Greenspan again supported a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting policies that would require Congress to offset future increases in government spending or new tax cuts with reductions in other government programs or tax increases.

The Bush administration supports bringing back the pay-as-you-go provision for spending, but not for tax cuts. A decade-long pay-as-you-go provision expired in 2002.

The administration says it aims to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

''Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken,'' Greenspan said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might just be another one of my good guesses, but I'd say the defecit will not be halved by the time the next president takes office.

Why all this focus on "lying?" If we would just consider it a "nuance" then I guess the Democrats would support it. Times change. Situations change. Our troops are there. If it costs a bit more to get the job done, then we'll get it done somehow.

Or would you rather put our troops at risk by not giving them what they need? Now that would truly be hypocritical. Kerry lost, get over it. Let's make our country stronger rather than trying to tear it apart.


Well, I focus on it because I do not like being lied too!

Now, I would not want to put our troops at risk at all (I could point out the fact that they were sent over without adequate equipment like body protection, but that is another thread) Once there, They must be supported to the upmost. No doubt.

My problem is....the cost. we were told a figure originally of about what, 40-80 billion. Now we are at 300 billion. Yes, Kerry lost. But the point was well made.


If we were told the truth to began with....would we be there now. Somehow I doubt it, but it is beside the point. Why are we treated like children by the gov't. Why can they not tell us the way it is from the begaining?

And the point is, Kerry was bashed for saying that the war would cost this much. republicans said he was nuts. We know see he was right....I wonder what other things he was right about.

I was not a big fan of his...but he was far better then what we had in my view. I may be changing my opinions of him, since he seemed to have a firm grasp on the facts, not the fiction we have been told.

That really is my whole point. I do not like being lied too.

Dammit klegg, I have to prepare for a speech I'm giving tomorrow morning. Nobody has posted anything much worth commenting on all day, and you come up with this right when I'm finally waking up. :mad: :D


Sorry...I did not mean for this to be a flame war...more abut why the gov't treats us like little kids.

Good luck on your speech. I am going to bed now :p

Greenspan Warns Congress on Defecit Danger

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050421152509990036

WASHINGTON (April 21) - Bloated budget deficits pose a danger to the nation's long-term economic health, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned anew Thursday. He issued a fresh call to policy-makers to move swiftly to put the government's fiscal house in order.

Greenspan only very briefly touched on the economy's current performance, saying ''activity appears to be expanding at a reasonably good pace,'' an assessment he has made repeatedly this year.

His comments to the Senate Budget Committee came as some private economists are concerned about the extent to which high energy prices will crimp economic activity.

Responding to questions, Greenspan suggested he is not concerned about the U.S. economy falling into a period of ''stagflation'' - the worrisome combination of rising inflation and slower economic growth. ''It certainly doesn't seem that way,'' he said.

Greenspan also said China ''should be moving sooner rather than later'' to overhaul it currency system, which U.S. manufacturers contend hurts sales and has contributed to job losses.

The United States has been pressing China to stop directly linking the yuan to the dollar. Treasury Secretary John Snow, in recent days, said Beijing - having taken a number of steps to prepare for such a change - is now ready to take the move. China has indicated it needs more time.

On the fiscal front, Greenspan said the persistence of swollen budget deficits in the years ahead ''would cause the economy to stagnate or worse'' unless the situation is reversed.


"The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years."
-Alan Greenspan

The budget deficit is a problem because it is projected to rise significantly as the first of 78 million baby boomers start to retire in 2008.

Last year, the government produced a budget deficit of $412 billion, a record in dollar terms. The deficit this year is projected to shatter that record, coming in at an estimated $427 billion.

Greenspan's call for fiscal prudence touched a nerve with Democrats who still sting from Greenspan's endorsement of President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. It was proposed at a time when the government was expecting a decade of budget surpluses, which didn't materialize.

''I was wrong like everybody else on the issue of surpluses,'' Greenspan said.

In 2001, Greenspan said the tax cut should be accompanied by a trigger mechanism that would rescind the tax cut in later years if economic forecasts changed. The Fed chief said it was ''frankly unfair'' for people not to remember that point.

''I think it is fair to consider how your message would be taken,'' said Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, recalling the 2001 tax-cut endorsement. ''It clearly was taken in the way that I have suggested in giving the green light.''

Democrats mostly blame the growing budget deficits on President Bush's big tax cuts, which they contend mainly benefited the wealthy. Republicans credited the tax cuts with helping the economy rebound from the 2001 recession. The costs of the tax cuts along with paying for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting terrorism at home have led to the deficits, they say.

Persistently large budget deficits threaten the economy because they can push up interest rates for consumers and businesses. Higher borrowing costs would weigh on consumers' and businesses' willingness to spend and invest - two important forces that keep the economy going. Rising interest rates also would slow growth in the housing market, Greenspan said.

And, growing budget shortfalls would force the government to borrow more to finance those deficits.

''The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years,'' Greenspan said.

Greenspan again supported a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting policies that would require Congress to offset future increases in government spending or new tax cuts with reductions in other government programs or tax increases.

The Bush administration supports bringing back the pay-as-you-go provision for spending, but not for tax cuts. A decade-long pay-as-you-go provision expired in 2002.

The administration says it aims to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

''Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken,'' Greenspan said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might just be another one of my good guesses, but I'd say the defecit will not be halved by the time the next president takes office.



So young, yet so wise. As long as we can produce minds like yours, well, I think the US will be ok.

What kind've upsets me is that there are Iraqis that are upsetthat we will be using some of the oil in Iraq to pay back some of the debt that this country has incurred in reuilding that country. Without us getting Saddam out that oil/money would have went into his pocket, instead of building up that country, yet we still have idiots protesting that we are taking their oil. That country is like a big "welfare" state.

I couldn't care less about the money...

MAN, you nut cases! Wow, I read some g-g-gloom & d-d-doomer stuff here! Didn't I already tell you "NO WORRIES"? Ok, serious for a second. Number one, the deficit. Yeah, we gotta watch it, and let's get it under control. For whatever reason which is unbeknownst to me. I GUESS because we might all go to debt prison some day in some foreign country, or all become poor and have to give up our RX-8s. But this takes me back to the premise that our country as a whole knows about this "money" thing. ANyone with me or did I just kill my early thursday night?

Seems Kerry was right...during the election he said it was going to cost more then 200 billion...If I recall, the Rebuplicans said he was crazy.

They were right. It is coasting 100 billion more(and counting)

Let the excuses begin.


WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=3&u=/ap/20050421/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_spending

How much went to Halliburton? :cool: :D (Just stirring the pot for fun, folks. Please keep the flames low.)

So young, yet so wise. As long as we can produce minds like yours, well, I think the US will be ok.

Well it's my money they're spending, and they haven't even recieved it yet. Well maybe I'll get rich and then I won't get taxed. What am I worrying for then ;).

Scarface had it right. "first you get the money. Then you get the power.. And THEN...you get the womahn". But in his case, he got the coke and say-la-vee.

I couldn't care less about the money...
Great!
Perhaps you'll foot the $300B for the rest of us :rolleyes:

Well it's my money they're spending, and they haven't even recieved it yet. Well maybe I'll get rich and then I won't get taxed. What am I worrying for then ;).

If you do get rich, then you can probably get richer by betting (and inevitably winning) that you'll get even richer by not being taxed. If that sentence is too hard for someone, then read it again.

How is that relative to what I said? Some of my best firends are fighting your war as we type, and two of them will never come home. I work at the VA and veterans rehab center on a weekly basis. I would like to see you come tell them how wonderful an idea this war was.

hmm and why would we tell you that..no war is good. But go over seas and talk to the iraqi's....i'm sure they woudl love it if Saddam was back in power killing all of them:p

seriously some of them will never come home..i don't mean to sound cruel...but they raised there hands, no one put a gun to their head..it was their choice and they did somethign great before they left the stage. If you are going to talk about people dying okay here are some fun facts for you. every year on average 248 soliders die in trainging accedents...yes training. In Iraq 60 die per every 100,000 soilders a year...in washington D.C. abotu 80+ die per 100,000 a year due to gun shots. So should we never go back to D.C. and pull out of there too? Hahaha if you alwasy look at the doom and gloom, you will have a very sad life. Don't feel sorry for how or why they died (your friends), feel happy for what they did while they were with us. You'll see them again when you are done performing in your play.

As someone else said...it is done you can't take back that we are there.....so what's the point in crying about it. Instead put some of that energy to use in other areas....such as how can we transfer power over to the Iraqi's so they can have a productive...free..and safe society? how can we get our debt undercontrol? b!tching about the debt wont' do anythign to fix it...if it really bothers you be proactive....actions talk louder than words.

ahh okay i am done babbl;ing....hope i didn't step on any toes...if so i'll send you some neosporin (spell?) and some band-aids. :D

Well, I focus on it because I do not like being lied too!

Now, I would not want to put our troops at risk at all (I could point out the fact that they were sent over without adequate equipment like body protection, but that is another thread) Once there, They must be supported to the upmost. No doubt.

My problem is....the cost. we were told a figure originally of about what, 40-80 billion. Now we are at 300 billion. Yes, Kerry lost. But the point was well made.


If we were told the truth to began with....would we be there now. Somehow I doubt it, but it is beside the point. Why are we treated like children by the gov't. Why can they not tell us the way it is from the begaining?

And the point is, Kerry was bashed for saying that the war would cost this much. republicans said he was nuts. We know see he was right....I wonder what other things he was right about.

I was not a big fan of his...but he was far better then what we had in my view. I may be changing my opinions of him, since he seemed to have a firm grasp on the facts, not the fiction we have been told.

That really is my whole point. I do not like being lied too.


Just so I understand what you are saying-
Are you stating that you feel lied to because the President didn't know the exact costs of this war and therefore feel lied to? No President would know how much this war would have cost or how long it would take to get this particular job done.
Just because there was an underestimate of the costs doesn't dictate that the President went out to deceive people. The President is not the only one who comes up with figures.

Well, kerry sure knew the costs...so did a lot of folks at the beginning.

It is not that he did not know...he knew.

He did not care...it did not matter.

We were lied to...and as long as we take this "its ok, he was bad" view, well, they will keep donig it.

I for one do not like getting ass fucked. It has beeen 4 years of it.

Some here not only like it, but support the guy doing it and ask for more!!!

This mony could have taken care of the SS issue for a looooonnnggg time. I for one would like to collect something when it is time.

I for one see that 3000 billion is a hell of an economic stimulas package.

I for one feel real bad for the folks in the military who signed up thinking there lives would be on the line for the RIGHT reason.

Not a bullshit, made up reason so we can make big oil richer.

End of rant. I am late for my seminar.

Please feel free to talk amounst yourselfs while I am gone.

And to think a single individual could have picked up 100 billion of it on his own (Bill Gates). I love America. Btw, if Kerry was president this war would have magically cost less when he took office? At least someone's giving the military what they need to do the job right. This stuff is always so political, and it doesn't need to be. Whatever you felt before the war doesn't matter, right now we’re there, and we need to do all we can to make it peaceful. You can say, "I told ya so" all you want and it doesn't help the situation. Giving the troops what they need to win the war is the right thing to do, no matter how much it costs.

worth every penny. :D

And to think a single individual could have picked up 100 billion of it on his own (Bill Gates). I love America. Btw, if Kerry was president this war would have magically cost less when he took office? At least someone's giving the military what they need to do the job right. This stuff is always so political, and it doesn't need to be. Whatever you felt before the war doesn't matter, right now we’re there, and we need to do all we can to make it peaceful. You can say, "I told ya so" all you want and it doesn't help the situation. Giving the troops what they need to win the war is the right thing to do, no matter how much it costs.

In that we should support our troops and give them everything they need to finish the job and come home, we are in perfect agreement.

In that we should forgive an administration for a lie that took us to war, I couldn't disagree more. We impeached Clinton for lieing about a blowjob. The blowjob didn't cost US taxpayers $300Billion (and counting). The blowjob didn't cost 1000+ US lives.

I'm not saying that we should suddenly pull out of Iraq or that we should stop supporting our troops who have been ordered to put their lives on hold to go over there. What I AM saying, is that we should hold the current administration responsible for the mess they've gotten us into.

But I would also say that the USA has the most beautiful women!
Where else have you been? Big isn't always beautiful ;)

Just so I understand what you are saying-
Are you stating that you feel lied to because the President didn't know the exact costs of this war and therefore feel lied to? No President would know how much this war would have cost or how long it would take to get this particular job done.
Just because there was an underestimate of the costs doesn't dictate that the President went out to deceive people. The President is not the only one who comes up with figures.

Despite what he did or didn't know, he said that people who thought it would cost over 200 billion were crazy because it wouldn't be nearly that expensive. If the President didn't know, it would have been better for him to not say anything than lie like he did.

And to think a single individual could have picked up 100 billion of it on his own (Bill Gates). I love America. Btw, if Kerry was president this war would have magically cost less when he took office? At least someone's giving the military what they need to do the job right. This stuff is always so political, and it doesn't need to be. Whatever you felt before the war doesn't matter, right now we’re there, and we need to do all we can to make it peaceful. You can say, "I told ya so" all you want and it doesn't help the situation. Giving the troops what they need to win the war is the right thing to do, no matter how much it costs. The first rule of holes: "When you're in one, stop digging."

The argument that "it doesn't matter" how we got there fails on a number of points.

First, it does matter that the current administration has been reduced to arguing that "the end justifies the means" with regard to taking this country to war. That is especially true when the "means" don't necessarily achieve the "end."

Second, it does matter that the credibility of this administration is so tattered that a response to a truly serious international threat is virtually impossible because of skepticism about the veracity and competence of this administration both at home and abroad.

Third, it does matter that the US military is so overstretched at this point that even if it were necessary to counter a serious international threat in say, Korea, it would be impossible to do so.

Fourth, it does matter that "winning the war" doesn't ultimately depend on military spending, anymore than it did in Vietnam. Those who so ardently argue that "throwing money at a problem doesn't work" when the problem is poverty, education, and health care should turn their attention to truly complex international problems where pouring money into the military doesn't necessarily result in achieving US objectives.

Third, it does matter that the US military is so overstretched at this point that even if it were necessary to counter a serious international threat in say, Korea, it would be impossible to do so.


Untrue.

I'm sorry my viewpoints made you feel so defensive. Thank you for all of your opinions, since that’s all they are.

All I said was now that we are there, and we have to do all we can to protect the people involved. If that means more money for body armor, light tank armor, and whatnot, so be it. If your man was president right now, would things be any better? Why dance around that question? This thread is not about going to war; it's about the costs involved in it. If you want to talk about how bad the war was in the first place, I'm sure there are many other threads that it would be more appropriate in.

Untrue. While I appreciate your reassurance, I think I'll rely on such sources as Jane's Defense Analysis. In 2003, before the magnitude and duration of the current Iraq situation became clear, and before the US military failed to meet its recruitment targets for both 2004 and the first four months of 2005, and before the US military resorted to a "stop loss" back door draft of reservists and the National Guard, Jane's had this to say...

"Twenty-one of the US Army's 33 regular combat brigades are already on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, amounting to roughly 250,000 fighting men and women. And this does not include a substantial number of US troops regularly stationed in Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan, or smaller contingents now scattered around the world. A traditional calculation assumes that for every soldier deployed on an active mission, two more are required to be kept in reserve, either in order to rotate those in action or to prepare for that rotation. Under this assumption, the USA has already reached its limit today. But, to the frustration of the Pentagon, neither US diplomatic priorities nor the sheer pace of international developments appears to take this into account.

The cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq now runs at roughly US$4bn a month and is rising.(It's now $7 billion a month) More importantly for US military planners, it also costs, on average, the life of one US soldier a day.(It's now about 3 per day.)

Furthermore, Washington has already decided that it will make no further cuts in its presence in Europe and cannot extricate itself from Afghanistan. Given the North Korean situation, no cuts in US troops can be expected in Asia either, notwithstanding the planned redeployment of US forces inside South Korea."

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030806_1_n.shtml

While I appreciate your reassurance, I think I'll rely on such sources as Jane's Defense Analysis. In 2003, before the magnitude and duration of the current Iraq situation became clear, and before the US military failed to meet its recruitment targets for both 2004 and the first four months of 2005, and before the US military resorted to a "stop loss" back door draft of reservists and the National Guard, Jane's had this to say...

"Twenty-one of the US Army's 33 regular combat brigades are already on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, amounting to roughly 250,000 fighting men and women. And this does not include a substantial number of US troops regularly stationed in Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan, or smaller contingents now scattered around the world. A traditional calculation assumes that for every soldier deployed on an active mission, two more are required to be kept in reserve, either in order to rotate those in action or to prepare for that rotation. Under this assumption, the USA has already reached its limit today. But, to the frustration of the Pentagon, neither US diplomatic priorities nor the sheer pace of international developments appears to take this into account.

The cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq now runs at roughly US$4bn a month and is rising.(It's now $7 billion a month) More importantly for US military planners, it also costs, on average, the life of one US soldier a day.(It's now about 3 per day.)

Furthermore, Washington has already decided that it will make no further cuts in its presence in Europe and cannot extricate itself from Afghanistan. Given the North Korean situation, no cuts in US troops can be expected in Asia either, notwithstanding the planned redeployment of US forces inside South Korea."

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030806_1_n.shtml



That's janes.

I 'am' the Army. I know our strengths. Stop believing/furthering panic.

jane's defense analysis. jane fonda? LOL :D

I for one do not like getting ass fucked. It has beeen 4 years of it.

Some here not only like it, but support the guy doing it and ask for more!!!

This mony could have taken care of the SS issue for a looooonnnggg time. I for one would like to collect something when it is time.

I for one see that 3000 billion is a hell of an economic stimulas package.
You have 3 1/2 more years of bending over to do, so are you going to take it like a man or continue squealing like a pig? OOooooooeeeeeee!!!!! ;)

You must not understand how the budget works. Nobody would have voted for a 300 billion social security "fix" taken from the general tax fund (or billed to the deficit, for that matter. Nor would an "economic stimulus package" (read: welfare program) in that amount likely have been approved even if Kerry had won.

And for those of you who don't have faith in our military being able to protect our citizens from potential future threats, I would say that you are ridiculously naive. I have the utmost faith in them.

I'm sorry my viewpoints made you feel so defensive. Thank you for all of your opinions, since that’s all they are.

All I said was now that we are there, and we have to do all we can to protect the people involved. If that means more money for body armor, light tank armor, and whatnot, so be it. If your man was president right now, would things be any better? Why dance around that question? This thread is not about going to war; it's about the costs involved in it. If you want to talk about how bad the war was in the first place, I'm sure there are many other threads that it would be more appropriate in. Not feeling "defensive." Just noting that efforts to divorce the issue of how we got where we are from current funding levels is convenient for this administration but hardly enlightening.

Likewise, to ignore the question of how best to extricate the US from the Iraq quagmire by focusing exclusively on funding for current policies and promising to spend "whatever it takes to win the war" is a replay of failed policies in Vietnam.

No one argues that US soldiers in Iraq shouldn't have the best possible protection, but the expenditures for "body armor, light tank armor, and whatnot" are a miniscule portion of the entire $80+ billion (off the books) request from the current administration. Most of it is devoted to such things as building permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and coping with the billions of "lost" funds already appropriated.

jane's defense analysis. jane fonda? LOL :D
Uh, not quite. Just the most respected source for military analysis in the world over the last sixty years, or so.

Uh, not quite. Just the most respected source for military analysis in the world over the last sixty years, or so.

i couldn't resist. :D

That's janes.

I 'am' the Army. I know our strengths. Stop believing/furthering panic. Perhaps you should speak to your boss about "furthering panic."

WASHINGTON (CNN) 2/6/2005 -- The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.

i couldn't resist. :D :D

Here's why you are wrong:

traditional calculation assumes that for every soldier deployed on an active mission, two more are required to be kept in reserve, either in order to rotate those in action or to prepare for that rotation. Under this assumption

That 'assumption' is not valid. It's an "ASSUMPTION"..


Perhaps you should speak to your boss about "furthering panic."

WASHINGTON (CNN) 2/6/2005 -- The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.


'clearly stressed' is NOT the same thing as "We would be unable to respond to a North Korea incident. "not meeting recruitment goals' also does not equate to 'unable to deal with N. Korea'.

www.hop.com ;)

Great!
Perhaps you'll foot the $300B for the rest of us :rolleyes:

The way I see it they would have wasted the money one way or another. I do care about our economy, but in regard to the invation of Iraq, money is the least of my worries.

-insert rant here- :rolleyes:

I don't need a history lesson. I am not crying. The Iraqi people are not free, and they will more-than-likely never be free. Saddam was a product of the region. The situation is getting worse in Iraq...not better. Just because it is not on the news anymore doesn't mean it's not happening.

Furthermore, I am doing something about it. I do everything I can to help our soldiers get back on their feet when they get home. We have even started a distance learning program at our college specifically for our troops in the middle east. I probably don't do enough, but at least I try.

Our military is voluntary. However, they signed up to protect our country, and not to defend others. I don't want to sound harsh here, but I would rather Saddam killl 300k of his own people than one of mine. It should be their responcibility to free themselves. We did...

No matter how much you enjoy huge spending deficits and wars based on a farse, the facts remain.

Here's why you are wrong:

That 'assumption' is not valid. It's an "ASSUMPTION"..

'clearly stressed' is NOT the same thing as "We would be unable to respond to a North Korea incident. "not meeting recruitment goals' also does not equate to 'unable to deal with N. Korea'.[/url] ;)


N. Korea has a military and some pretty significant defense systems. We won't be driving to Pyongyang in a mtter of hours. Not to mention China wouldn't be pleased with our decision.

I don't need a history lesson. I am not crying. The Iraqi people are not free, and they will more-than-likely never be free. Saddam was a product of the region. The situation is getting worse in Iraq...not better. Just because it is not on the news anymore doesn't mean it's not happening.

Furthermore, I am doing something about it. I do everything I can to help our soldiers get back on their feet when they get home. We have even started a distance learning program at our college specifically for our troops in the middle east. I probably don't do enough, but at least I try.

Our military is voluntary. However, they signed up to protect our country, and not to defend others. I don't want to sound harsh here, but I would rather Saddam killl 300k of his own people than one of mine. It should be their responcibility to free themselves. We did...

No matter how much you enjoy huge spending deficits and wars based on a farse, the facts remain.

I agree with your point, if not your tone.

Perhaps you should speak to your boss about "furthering panic."

WASHINGTON (CNN) 2/6/2005 -- The U.S. military "is clearly stressed," and recruitment of new troops is falling short of plans, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday.


Ah, were were you guys last night, when they were all over poor little old me!!!

I kinda dig his tone too.

N. Korea has a military and some pretty significant defense systems. We won't be driving to Pyongyang in a mtter of hours. Not to mention China wouldn't be pleased with our decision.


Indeed. We'd never initiate armed conflict with N. Korea...Just can't see that happening.

In that we should support our troops and give them everything they need to finish the job and come home, we are in perfect agreement.
In that we should forgive an administration for a lie that took us to war, I couldn't disagree more. We impeached Clinton for lieing about a blowjob. The blowjob didn't cost US taxpayers $300Billion (and counting). The blowjob didn't cost 1000+ US lives.




Ah, but it did cost us somthing north of 50 million...spent by the Republicans in a fruitless attempt to get the best presidant we have had in about, oh..35 years out of office.

I remeber rebublican after republican steping down because it turned out they had been screwing around on thier wife's.

Again, they make us the worlds laughing stock...and cost us mony to boot! I bet that 50 million buys a lot of body armour.. :rolleyes:

Indeed. We'd never initiate armed conflict with N. Korea...Just can't see that happening.


No, because they can FIGHT BACK...and they have no oil. They do have nukes, and are a real threat to us...not a fake threat like Iraq.

It is no fun screwing with someone who can give you a bloody nose.

Our military is voluntary. However, they signed up to protect our country, and not to defend others. I don't want to sound harsh here, but I would rather Saddam killl 300k of his own people than one of mine. It should be their responcibility to free themselves. We did...



[sarcasm]

Yeah! We shoulda let Western Europe and the South Pacific sort out their OWN issues with Germany and Japan, respectively.

:rolleyes:


Answer this - have you served? If not, you've got little clue what they 'signed up' for.

No, because they can FIGHT BACK...and they have no oil. They do have nukes, and are a real threat to us...not a fake threat like Iraq.

It is no fun screwing with someone who can give you a bloody nose.


You are a Intelectual Midget when it comes Military Strategy .

No matter what evidence or policy or doctrine I could reply with would be acceptable to you. Your mind is made up based on Liberal Kool-Aide dispite 'reality'.

Enjoy your life.

No, because they can FIGHT BACK...and they have no oil. They do have nukes, and are a real threat to us...not a fake threat like Iraq. We seem to be having some trouble even with that 'fake threat.' Didn't we declare victory two years and over a thousand dead soldiers ago?

Addendum: dmp, if you're gonna call someone an intellectual midget, at least spell 'intellectual' right.

We seem to be having some trouble even with that 'fake threat.' Didn't we declare victory two years and over a thousand dead soldiers ago?

Addendum: dmp, if you're gonna call someone an intellectual midget, at least spell 'intellectual' right.

LMAO

Some wars are for oil. What was Gulf War I for? To free Kuwait? :rolleyes:

If our military is doing fine why aren't we stepping into Dafur? Why aren't we teaching Iran a lesson? Why are drug dealers and war lords running wild in Afghanistan? If money is no problem (saying so would be doom and gloom, right ;)), and going against world opinion to preemptively attack before hasn't stopped us, and we have the troops, why aren't these places being taken care of?

You are a Intelectual Midget when it comes Military Strategy .

No matter what evidence or policy or doctrine I could reply with would be acceptable to you. Your mind is made up based on Liberal Kool-Aide dispite 'reality'.

Enjoy your life.


Actually, I have been playing war games for about 28 of my 38 years on this plant. The way I figure it, I am more qualified then the morons who planned this little invasion of ours.

AND, more important, I did sleep at a holiday inn last night. :p

And I keep telling you, I am not a liberal...I just do not like the evil that the Republican party stands for.

Really, you say you do not like lies, and that makes you a liberal....hey..It does! :eek:

We seem to be having some trouble even with that 'fake threat.' Didn't we declare victory two years and over a thousand dead soldiers ago?

Addendum: dmp, if you're gonna call someone an intellectual midget, at least spell 'intellectual' right.


I really like that new avatar...so compelling. Looks like condi rice to me. only better looking.

And on the subject of strategic intellectual midgets, who got us into this Iraq mess in the first place? And Rummy admitted just last week that we didn't - and apparently still don't - have an exit strategy. You'd think we would have learned from the Vietnam debacle that letting the suits run the show isn't a smart idea.

Actually, I have been playing war games for about 28 of my 38 years on this plant. The way I figure it, I am more qualified then the morons who planned this little invasion of ours.



lol...okay then General.


lmao.

I really like that new avatar...so compelling. Looks like condi rice to me. only better looking.
Why thank you, klegg. I'm focused, dude. Maniacally focused.

I like that. General Klegg. Makes me sound like a klingon.


Fire disrupters, officer krag.

As you command , general klegg.

No effect, helm, channel a tachyon burst through the main deflector dish..

I am going to make my wife call me general during sex tonight...I just hope the artillary does not fire too soon...that happens sometimes, when you probe the enemys tender flank. :eek:

I kinda dig his tone too.Is that some secret Democratic code-word for "ass?" :p

lol...okay then General.


lmao.


Since your stratigic brian is so much greater then mine, lets us debate a few famous battles. You get taught this stuff in military classes, so you should be ok here. Let us start with the battle of Cannae, 216 BC..Tell me the stakes, ther players, who went wrong and where...or pick a side, we can discuss the stratigic problems.


Well, that is an old one, would you prefer Chickamauga? That was 1863...we can take sides and argue the pros and cons...and the importance of the battle.

Come on, do not make me wait..you have the advantage here..after all, what do I know? hell, I can not even spell well, and I was never in the military.

Now, do not make we wait long...do not "google" this. I did not.

Oh for gods sake..you can not even google quick? come on...stratigicly google.

Lets have fun! Come on. People would love this.

Is that some secret Democratic code-word for "ass?" :p
He shoots! He scores! Once again Doc weighs in with the rapier-sharp repartee that has made his name a byword for wit in the RX-8 lounge. :rolleyes:

I missed you, what can I say? Just a little locker room humor. :)

Ok...even though the above are amoung the 50 most sudied battles of all time, we seem to not want to talk about them. OK, they are kind of tough...we will start easy. Marathon, 490 Bc as I recall...who were the players? what happened and why?

Come on, I have not had a good tatical discussion since my brother died.

Really, I am looking forward to your learned opinion here. I bet you can teach me a few things..
OK..you pick the battle.

How about his...Arbela, 331 BC. I know you had to have gone over this one...It is probably one of the five most important battles of all time! You can take alexander, I will take Darius...we will argue the pros and cons...I gave you the easy one.

Look, I am not even googling this stuff..I do not mind letting you save face here, but come on...how long does the search take? These are not even the tough ones...

Ok, here is one that you do not even have to think about...what was hitlers largest tatical blunder?

Easy...EASY!

DO you not look on the bottom of the page where the "active members browsing the lounge" box is? There is no dmp present at this time, my friend. You must wait until he returns, and even then it would be more fair if an impartial party picked the battles for a game of "E-Jeapordy" amongst you.

While some are invisible (as I used to be), dmp is not. He is gone. Elsewhere. Vanished. Afoot. To return later.

Well, looks like the show is over. Sorry we all will not get the benifit of dmp's a fine sratigic mind. :rolleyes:

If you are interested, those battles make some interseting reading.

And they are taught in military schools.

Why do people pick fights with me on topics I happen to know a little about, and then take off?

Aw shucks, ya big lug. Noogies!

I missed you, what can I say? Just a little locker room humor. :)

And why did I spell interesting three diffrent ways? I should spend less time on shelves, sex and war and more on spelling primers... :)

speaking of war...anyone here play DOW? I am going to play a game or too now...I am all tatical.

How about Star fleet battles? That is an old one, but so good.

Is it happy hour, klegg?:p

Were did everyone go?

[sarcasm]

Yeah! We shoulda let Western Europe and the South Pacific sort out their OWN issues with Germany and Japan, respectively.

Following the Invasion of Iraq logic, we should have invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Apples and oranges really...

Did I serve? No...I was the first in my family not to serve. However, a good majority of the people I deal with everyday do serve, but that is irrelevant. Our military, regardless, is there to protect our country. (note the period)

I agree with your point, if not your tone.

I do not mean to project a poor tone...

I tend to be a joker and somewhat sarcastic. This particular media doesn't fit well with my personality. :(

Is that some secret Democratic code-word for "ass?" :p


See... this confirms my theory. :rolleyes:

I do not mean to project a poor tone...

I tend to be a joker and somewhat sarcastic. This particular media doesn't fit well with my personality. :(


No...I enjoy sarcasim as much as the next..if you read my posts, I take it to the level of art.

I just try to take it easy on sevace men and women...just in case they really are.
(it seems some banned people have come back pretending to be in the military..)

DID not mean to come of critical of you..sorry if i did. :)

funny to read people get all up in arms when you bring up current issues. Then we wonder what happens when our projected to reign for 50years has been cut to 15 within this past president.

funny to read people get all up in arms when you bring up current issues. Then we wonder what happens when our projected to reign for 50years has been cut to 15 within this past president.
Wanna try again? This time try proofing before posting. :)

Wanna try again? This time try proofing before posting. :)
Nah, I dont like looking over what i wrote, takes too much time :)

No...I enjoy sarcasim as much as the next..if you read my posts, I take it to the level of art.

I just try to take it easy on sevace men and women...just in case they really are.
(it seems some banned people have come back pretending to be in the military..)

DID not mean to come of critical of you..sorry if i did. :)


Hey no problem... I always appreciate some constructive criticism.

Ah, but it did cost us somthing north of 50 million...spent by the Republicans in a fruitless attempt to get the best presidant we have had in about, oh..35 years out of office.
Said president's final term ended in January of 1989, and Mr. Reagan died peacefully last summer. You WERE talking about the best president in the last 35 years....

ahhh,,,,,no. Billy C. Regan had some issues. Like Iran contra.


you notice how Dmp never came back to debate military planning with me?


Next up, someone will want to debate sexual deviance.....I happen to know a lot about that also :p

...

All I said was now that we are there, and we have to do all we can to protect the people involved. If that means more money for body armor, light tank armor, and whatnot, so be it. If your man was president right now, would things be any better? Why dance around that question? This thread is not about going to war; it's about the costs involved in it. If you want to talk about how bad the war was in the first place, I'm sure there are many other threads that it would be more appropriate in.In light of this discussion, it's interesting to note the Kennedy-Bayh amendment to the supplemental appropriation for Iraq/Afghanistan war funding last week in the Senate. The amendment raised the amount allocated for armoring Humvees from the $74.3 million requested by the Bush administration to $213 million.

Opponents of the amendment claimed the additional money wasn't needed because the plants armoring the Humvees were already working at capacity. It turns out, however, that "capacity" means one shift per day. The additional funding will allow complete funding of the effort to add armor to the Army's Humvees. Without it, the effort would have run out of money this summer.

The Kennedy-Bayh amendment passed 61-39. Democrats voted 43-1 in favor of the amendment; Republicans voted 38-18 against it.

Yikes! Well, they have alot on thier minds..Delay mess, the "clean safe "nuclear power initative, new oil refinareis on army basis when we are told the problem is supply of crude, not the finished product. And of yeah, jumping in in florida to stop abortions. That is a full plate.

Can not blame them for not addresiung the real issues. saving our troops, SS, the economy. After all, there kids are not aver ther.

Ah...being sick makes klegg a nasty basterd!

But it's true. Nasty or not.

Which part?