Iraq Only 87 Billion

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I guess some of you far right guys were right. Should have just nuke it. That should have cost a little over a 100 millioin.
Dam could we use that money here at home. Bridges and Dams all getin old. Power stations and power lines just waiting to give more trouble. Roads need lots of work. You talk about putting some people back to work. Chit lets do it here. Screw Iraq. Let all the oil companies of the world take care of Iraq. They will make all the money anyway.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I know how we can raise the money. Just give the rich another tax cut that should generate more than enough!
 

Chanman

:-?PipeSmokin'
Forum Member
http://web.syr.edu/~jdsegarr/yestowar.htm


As Larry Flynt would write "Ad Parody- Not to be taken seriously."

"For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September the 11th, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power. "

Boggles the mind doesn't it: $87 billion!
 
Last edited:

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
DJV,

Right on the money about what's going on, we should take that 87 billion and repair are own infrastructures. Like I said in a previous thread I voted for GW but I wont get fooled again, I thought his speech last night was absolutely a joke, I really don't know any American can actually believe anything that GW or the rest of the adminsitration say since they have lied so much in the past. When GW landed on the carrier he declared the war was over, how come now he needs 87 million for a war he declared over? If some of these congressmen and Senators had any balls they would stand up to this administration and make them accountable for their lies.
 
Last edited:

hellah10

WOOFJUICE
Forum Member
Oct 24, 2001
7,958
0
0
44
Toledo
sticker_pullbush.JPG
 

Rudy

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 3, 2000
246
0
0
San Francisco, CA
So, let's see:

1. The cost of September 11 damage alone was north of $100 billion.

2. The bad guys keep saying that they're going to do more damage to us in their holy war.

3. The bad guys are still largely a fringe movement in the Arab world, but one that had been picking up momentum though their terror tactics and penetration toward the mainstream via rogue governments like Iraq and Iran.

4. The bad guys are following the blueprint of Mohammad and early Islam by trying to kill all the infidels and have an ultimate objective of world domination.

5. It is clear the civilized world has not been serious about stopping this menace, only letting it grow and refusing to take decisive measures. Such measures can be reasonably assumed to only continue to fail.

6. We finally have a President who realizes that the problem isn't going to go away and that the cost of stopping it now, however long it takes, is a whole lot less than cost to fight a stronger enemy later, reduces the risk to our economy, and protects against threats to our long-term freedom.

So there are several inter-related questions that we each much answer:

A. Do we believe the short-term and long-term threat is serious? How could anyone answer other than, "yes?"

B. Do we believe that lesser measures than exterminating the threat could solve the threat? Not likely.

C. Are the proposed measures by the Bush administration likely to be effective in achieving the goal of exterminating the threat? Jury is out, but evidence to date suggests significant degradation of the threat already. But degradation of the threat is not enough, and it will take years to get the cockroaches. It will cost more than even this new $87 billion, but the cost pales in comparison to the risk of the ostrich-like tactics that opponents of the war on terror would have us take.

Given the "holy war" nature of the threat, we will never be able to stop vigilance until the Arab world is itself sufficiently freed of the menace to cleanse itself of the remaining cockroaches. Once that tide is turned, the cost will drop significantly. The Islamist fanatic warriors will be thwarted from within.

If you believe that Islam is truly a peaceful religion, the cleansing from within result is not hard to envision once these warriors are again only viewed as kooks and their platform of corrupt governments is taken away.

If you don't believe that the tide can be turned from within the Arab world once there is greater freedom for the people to chart their own destiny, then it is only more imperitive to beat the threat now before it becomes stronger, gets more economic and military power, and becomes a real threat to us.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Rudy,

1. Where'e those weapons of mass destruction?
2. How's the US economy looking?
3. It seems as those Iraq has become a haven for terrorist since we went into the country, great post war planning.
4. It seems to me most of the terrorist come from Saudi Arabia, why didn't we invade the heart of the terror?
5. It is becoming quite apparant that everytime these bad tax cuts do not stimulate the economy the Bush administration will resort to the fear card to throw the mainstream of the scent of a inept regime.
6. The amount of lies told about this war between Bush and Tony Blair is sickening.
7. Yes 9/11 was a terrible event but it could of been prevented by following up on information.
8. The bad guys have had a holy war towards the US since Isreal was a country and they have always said that they are on a jihad. How soon we forget Khadfi and the Ayatollah they were completely anti american and what did that get them.
9. North Korea is more of a direct threat to peace on earth than Iraq ever was, yet me do nothing
10. Saying Bush is finally a president whom will do something, I don't call going into Iraq with a half ass plan as being a leader whom has a ace up his sleeve.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Rudy here is the problem as I see it. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. That was an after-thought. In fact by attacking Iraq we weakened ourselves. Bush has not proven a link to Iraq yet. Bush was going to get Iraq whether 9/11 happened or not and Halliburten had the contract, open ended by the way, months before 9/11 even happened.
Now we are in Iraq. We are stuck. We are spread too thin. We now must ask the rest of the world, the guys we snubbed our noses at when they told us they didn't see Iraq as a threat, to help us clean up the mess. They will eventually help but it is going to cost us through the nose for that help thanks to the lack of diplomacy used before we attacked.
While we were busy shock and aweing the Iraqies Al-Qeada was busy planning future attacks and regrouping.
 

Rudy

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 3, 2000
246
0
0
San Francisco, CA
I don't understand.... are you suggesting the threat isn't real, or that we went after the wrong guys first, or that we should be MORE aggressive? Your points are contradictory. What do you think we should be doing to beat the bad guys?
 

Rudy

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 3, 2000
246
0
0
San Francisco, CA
Stevie: the above post was directed to MC. For you I would ask the same questions, but you seem to be focused on a much smaller game and issues. Are you suggesting that if we let them exterminate Israel they'd be happy? That would just be the starting point. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
 

Snake Plissken

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 21, 2000
849
0
0
57
The Island of Manhattan
When GW landed on the carrier he declared the war was over, how come now he needs 87 million for a war he declared over?

President Bush never Declared the War was over :rolleyes:

And about the weapons of mass destruction let me ask you guys one question
Did Iraq ever have weapons of mass destruction?

Theysure did because they were used on the Kurds and on Iran.

Do you think Saddam is just going to leave them sitting around for us to find?

Where are the weapons of Mass destruction? Who Knows but you cannot dispute the fact that they existed.
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
60
Alberta, Canada
turf,

is that a mass grave of Iraqi conscripts killed by carpet bombing in the "softening up" stage of this disatrous war...I can't tell...

Those several hundred thousand Iraqis killed by US bombs?

Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard. But the Iraq that is left behind is 100x more of a danger to the USA...orphans who hate the US for taking their father away....the next generation of suicide bombers...

Georg Bush and Tony Blair will indeed get their much vaunted regime change at their next elections...

ozball
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Rudy so you think Iraq was a threat to Isreal and that is why we went in there?
To make it short I think we went after the wrong guy, yes that is what I think. I don't think that Rumsfeld and Chaney's old business pal was the threat.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Sorry Oz,

The rest of the story......This cartoon appears in the July edition of The Intellectual Activist. It was created on May 30 after news of mass graves, but on July 17 yet another mass grave was unearthed, this one containing all women and children with bullet holes through the skull.

Residents estimate that between 200 and 400 people could be buried there, the [U.S. military] statement said [...] More graves are still being found as Iraqis feel free to recount tales of arrests, torture and killings once too risky to tell. The human rights group Amnesty International says it has information about 17,000 disappearances in Iraq over the past 20 years but that the actual figure may be much higher.

http://www.9neesan.com/photos/album/
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
60
Alberta, Canada
It's horrible, but the answer didn't (and doesn't) lay in killing the Iraqi army and invading the country.

This war had nothing to do with preventing mass graves of Iraqis, but a lot more with settling old scores for Rumsfeld and Bush. There are numerous other hotspots in the world where the crimes are greater that haven't attracted US attention militarily...

ozball
 

Rudy

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 3, 2000
246
0
0
San Francisco, CA
Stevie: OK, you think we went after the wrong guy. I don't think so, but I don't think it is provable to your satisfaction with the evidence you seek. Regardess, that wasn't my question. What would you DO to DEFEAT this menace? Clearly, the diplomacy we have tried for the last 20+ years hasn't worked. Evil must be defeated, and regardless of whether you definitively link 9/11 and Iraq, there is no doubting Saddam H. was evil. Iraq was a threat to all the world and he had to go down. It's a starting point. Actually Afghanistan was the starting point, and those countries are now on the road to freedom.

You can argue all day long about what you wouldn't do or that the tactics used have been erroneous, but what would you DO that could reasonably be expected to eliminate the threat?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top