kallend 2,174 #1 May 13, 2004 www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/iraq.spending.ap/index.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #2 May 13, 2004 K, I suspect you dont agree with the need to spend the money in this manner........but I consider it money well spent.........say 50 or 75 billion next year for our military to conduct operations in the middle east or the possibility of spending trillions after a low yield nuke detonates on a container ship in NY harbor.....still could happen anyway in spite of our efforts but it makes it a lot more difficult to do if we keep the pressure on themMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 May 13, 2004 Must buy more Haliburton stock..... Must buy more Haliburton stock..... Must buy more Haliburton stock.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #4 May 13, 2004 QuoteK, I suspect you dont agree with the need to spend the money in this manner........but I consider it money well spent.........say 50 or 75 billion next year for our military to conduct operations in the middle east or the possibility of spending trillions after a low yield nuke detonates on a container ship in NY harbor.....still could happen anyway in spite of our efforts but it makes it a lot more difficult to do if we keep the pressure on them I have no issue with spending for the war on terror, but Bush's vendetta against Saddham Hussein had almost nothing to do with that. As far as anyone can tell, it just helped AQ's recruiting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 May 13, 2004 Quote50 or 75 billion next year That's what they're owning up to now, before the election. You seriously think those numbers won't shift dramatically upward? The administration has demonstrated an overwhelming ability to underestimage the costs of everything from medicaire, to Iraq, to you name it. Bush has said we'll be in Iraq for 10 years. You don't think it's going to reach the trillions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #6 May 13, 2004 QuoteK, I suspect you dont agree with the need to spend the money in this manner........but I consider it money well spent.........say 50 or 75 billion next year for our military to conduct operations in the middle east or the possibility of spending trillions after a low yield nuke detonates on a container ship in NY harbor.....still could happen anyway in spite of our efforts but it makes it a lot more difficult to do if we keep the pressure on them QUOTE: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost more than $50 billion next year, a top Defense Department official told Congress Thursday in the Bush administration's clearest description yet of the conflicts' price tags. To me, Iraq and Afghanistan hardly constitute the whole Middle East. I think the opposite case could be made that the war in Iraq has diverted much needed funds and resources away from homeland security and operations in other nations that have closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Yes, the money will need to be spent because we are already there; but I think to connect it to stopping terrorism is a tenuous leap at best."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #7 May 13, 2004 I know it will reach trillions in about 1/10000 of a second if they detonate one nuke in any of our cities.....still money well spent considering the alternative,even if you disagree with the reasons for being over thereMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 May 13, 2004 Quotestill money well spent considering the alternative, Not the alternative of spending the money improving protection at our borders, hunting down AQ in Afghanistan, and increasing our intelligence efforts, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #9 May 13, 2004 QuoteI know it will reach trillions in about 1/10000 of a second if they detonate one nuke in any of our cities.....still money well spent considering the alternative,even if you disagree with the reasons for being over there How is the distraction of George and Donald's Great Misadventure in Iraq helping to ferret out nukes in the hands of terrorists?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #10 May 13, 2004 well could be that al-qaeda has concentrated a major part of it's resources in Iraq since it is a sore point with them.If they are busy shooting it out with coalition troops over there it makes it difficult to focus there attentions in other areas,such as nuke development,chem bio warfare etc. I have to go now but I will address counterpoints in the morning.........noswaith dda!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #11 May 14, 2004 Quotewell could be that al-qaeda has concentrated a major part of it's resources in Iraq since it is a sore point with them.If they are busy shooting it out with coalition troops over there it makes it difficult to focus there attentions in other areas,such as nuke development,chem bio warfare etc. I have to go now but I will address counterpoints in the morning.........noswaith dda! Think about it though, would you put all of your resources in an area over-run with enemy troops? I think you will find they are somewhere else on the map..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #12 May 14, 2004 >I suspect you dont agree with the need to spend the money in this > manner........but I consider it money well spent......... This is amazingly reminiscent of the reluctant requests for money from the Johnson administration. Johnson tried to hide the cost of the Vietnam war, because he felt victory would be quick, and did not want to raise taxes or cut domestic spending. The result, of course, was a massive deficit and out of control inflation. >still could happen anyway in spite of our efforts but it makes it a lot >more difficult to do if we keep the pressure on them If someone "keeps up the pressure on us" with constant terrorist attacks, does that make us more or less likely to respond violently? I assume you heard about the video of terrorists cutting a man's head off on TV. You really think you're going to scare those people into not attacking the US? The only solution is to find them and kill them. And we can't do that unless the Iraqis want them found as well. If we keep torturing and killing innocent Iraqis, they will flock to the people who promise to liberate them from the evil americans. If we treat them with respect and help them rebuild their country, it will be clear who the 'good guys' are - and the terrorists will have more to fear from their countrymen than from the US. Which is how it should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #13 May 14, 2004 Quote>I suspect you dont agree with the need to spend the money in this > manner........but I consider it money well spent......... This is amazingly reminiscent of the reluctant requests for money from the Johnson administration. Johnson tried to hide the cost of the Vietnam war, because he felt victory would be quick, and did not want to raise taxes or cut domestic spending. The result, of course, was a massive deficit and out of control inflation. >still could happen anyway in spite of our efforts but it makes it a lot >more difficult to do if we keep the pressure on them If someone "keeps up the pressure on us" with constant terrorist attacks, does that make us more or less likely to respond violently? I assume you heard about the video of terrorists cutting a man's head off on TV. You really think you're going to scare those people into not attacking the US? The only solution is to find them and kill them. And we can't do that unless the Iraqis want them found as well. If we keep torturing and killing innocent Iraqis, they will flock to the people who promise to liberate them from the evil americans. If we treat them with respect and help them rebuild their country, it will be clear who the 'good guys' are - and the terrorists will have more to fear from their countrymen than from the US. Which is how it should be. At this point the US presence in Iraq is part (a major part) of the problem. We need to get out ASAP.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #14 May 14, 2004 Quotewell could be that al-qaeda has concentrated a major part of it's resources in Iraq since it is a sore point with them.If they are busy shooting it out with coalition troops over there it makes it difficult to focus there attentions in other areas,such as nuke development,chem bio warfare etc. I have to go now but I will address counterpoints in the morning.........noswaith dda! Rubbish. In Ireland fewer than 200 active terrorists kept the British army tied up for decades. We are playing into AQ's hands. A handful of their men keeps a huge fraction of our resources occupied, and our actions just help their recruiting. OBL must be ROFL at our inept political leadership.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
