juanesky 0 #51 December 14, 2005 Isn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Proceed with your rant, please...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. I am constantly amazed by your apologies for a president who took us to war under false pretenses, resulting in 30,000 plus civilian deaths and 2100+ US deaths and at a likely cost now of $300,000,000. The justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT in almost every respect. www.startribune.com/stories/587/5781041.html Equally astounding is your inability to understand that those figures pale in comparison to the costs of lifting the sanctions and then having to deal with Saddam in the future after he's had 10 years or so without UN Inspectors to develop N/B/C weapons. We know that Iran was his greatest enemy and his greatest fear. What do you think SH would be doing right now considering Iran is close to having a Nuclear bomb? Think he's be running to the US or UN for protection? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydiverek 60 #53 December 14, 2005 QuoteIts not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Yeah, it will soon be $300,000,000,000 (three hundred billion)...: http://costofwar.com Also, check the links below the "counter". Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? "Mission Acomplished!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,473 #54 December 14, 2005 >Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? As I recall, a White House budget analyst was fired for predicting the war could cost as much as $150 billion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #55 December 15, 2005 Quote>Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? As I recall, a White House budget analyst was fired for predicting the war could cost as much as $150 billion. That's cheap, considering the alternative of doing nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #56 December 15, 2005 I dont know any people that support thee insurgency so there is no need to debate that issue. We all agree the insurgents are evil assholes. Anyone here that comes on the forum and defends the insurgents will certainly get my and I imagine other people condemnation. But the same is not true for the invasion that is why i and others are loud in condemming it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #57 December 15, 2005 QuoteIts not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. My error. I find it hard to count that high.... 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 rushmc 18 #58 December 15, 2005 ....ya, like on welfare programs that create more bums and buys votes"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,473 #59 December 15, 2005 >That's cheap, considering the alternative of doing nothing. Ironic, then, that he was fired because they thought it was too HIGH a number to be made public. Almost like they were trying to sell a bill of goods . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #60 December 15, 2005 the cost of doing nothing? Yes it would have cost a lot if 1)Saddam had WMD's; Iraq Survey group and UN said he didnt and Bush himself has now admitted this. 2) saddam posed a threat to the world: he didnt, even Powel and Rice admitted this. 3)Saddam had ties to AQ: accordign to all inteligence agencies he didnt. See my post on oprevious page for more details and sources. As to Iran, the mess in Iraq has made it more difficult to deal with that problem. Iraq: no Wmd's - invaded. North korea had WMds - not invaded. What message does that send to Iran? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #61 December 15, 2005 QuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Proceed with your rant, please.... Imagine if Bush had told the truth in 2003. My fellow Americans; UN inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they are right. IAEA inspectors led by the able Mohammad Elbaradei have found no evidence of a nuclear program, and they are correct. All indications from those on the spot are that Iraq's weapons programs were essentially destroyed in 1991 and have not been rebuilt. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to the United States and is a minimal and easily contained threat to its neighbors. Despite VP Cheney's personal beliefs and a detailed investigation, we have found no evidence that Iraq was involved with the despicable events of 9/11. However, we know that Saddam Hussein is a bad man with bad intentions, so we have taken the difficult decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq and oust its government We anticipate that only 2,100 of our wonderful American boys will be killed and 10,000 maimed in the first three years. Some 30,000 Iraqi citizens will be killed, but I'm sure you will agree that this is a necessary sacrifice on their part. The cost will be around $300 Billion, or about $1,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the USA. Of course, we will borrow the money from China and Japan so you will not actually have to come up with the money, you can leave payment to your grandchildren. Thank you, goodnight, and God Bless America Yes, I can see that the public would have gone along readily.... 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 jeiber 0 #62 December 15, 2005 QuoteDidn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? Your'source' clearly states: QuoteThe Cost of Iraq War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding. How is it that you're allowed to change your numbers at any time you want, based on new information, but you hold Bush to a number he stated YEARS ago - prior to the war? Jeff ps- also, please list a reference (with date) where Bush said it would only cost $1B... and how long ago was that?!?!Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #63 December 15, 2005 Quote30,000 plus civilian deaths Wow... now it's 30,000 civilian deaths... who is it that you're calling a liar again? Who is it that you're accusing of being misleading? QuoteThe justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT Here we go again.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #64 December 15, 2005 QuoteWhat message does that send to Iran? It says to Iran, 'we're coming motherfuckers!'. (Quoted from a cartoon from years ago.) QuoteNorth korea had WMds - not invaded. You're bitching about 32,000 total deaths in Iraq, but you talk about invading North Korea?!?! If we invaded North Korea, we'd be over a million deaths by now... (assuming they didn't use their nukes), and the global economy would be destroyed for decades... If somebody had invaded NK, BEFORE they were such a threat this wouldn't be an issue. Then again, some people don't learn from the lessons of history. Let's let our opponents establish their weapons programs and a strong military before we do anything about it. I'm curious, (hypothetically speaking) do you think a war would have been more costly (lives and financial) if we allowed SH to strengthen his military force and develop WMD's? 'A stitch in time saves nine'. Then again, I'm sure that's foolish advice.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #65 December 15, 2005 QuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Do you mean all the insurgents that weren't there before the invasion? Also, with regard to mass graves, you are wrong. Note the date below and do try to keep up! Quote PM admits graves claim 'untrue' Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves. In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.' .... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Calle 0 #66 December 15, 2005 So your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? Maybe before they even think about it? Yeah, that would show the "motherfuckers" that you are coming. The biggest threat to the rest of the world is your WMD combined with that attitude and your patriotic thirst for blood. FUBAR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #67 December 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Do you mean all the insurgents that weren't there before the invasion? Also, with regard to mass graves, you are wrong. Note the date below and do try to keep up! Quote PM admits graves claim 'untrue' Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves. In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.' .... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html Don't bother him with facts, he believes in Bush.... 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 1,679 #68 December 15, 2005 I apologize for the spelling error in the first version, the corrected version is below: The White House: My fellow Americans; UN inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they are right. IAEA inspectors led by the able Mohammad Elbaradei have found no evidence of a nukular program, and they are correct. All indications from those on the spot are that Iraq's weapons programs were essentially destroyed in 1991 and have not been rebuilt. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to the United States and is a minimal and easily contained threat to its neighbors. Despite VP Cheney's personal beliefs and a detailed investigation, we have found no evidence that Iraq was involved with the despicable events of 9/11. However, we know that Saddam Hussein is a bad man with bad intentions, so we have taken the difficult decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq and oust its government We anticipate that only 2,100 of our wonderful American boys will be killed and 10,000 maimed in the first three years. Some 30,000 Iraqi citizens will be killed, but I'm sure you will agree that this is a necessary sacrifice on their part. The cost will be around $300 Billion, or about $1,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the USA. Of course, we will borrow the money from China and Japan so you will not actually have to come up with the money, you can leave payment to your grandchildren. Thank you, goodnight, and God Bless America ... 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 EricTheRed 0 #69 December 15, 2005 Quote....ya, like on welfare programs that create more bums and buys votes How about on building a few new highways to ease congestion, rebuilding some of the bridges that are falling apart in this country and educating our children. Maybe a few million on health care and a REAL prescription drug plan for those on medicare? I am not a fan of entitlement programs but there are a lot of capital improvements that are required to maintain our own infrastructure. I can't believe that anyone could still say that it was a good investment to invade Iraq.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 December 15, 2005 I see your point however, the money spent over there will make things last longer over here because they won't get blown up. Bush was right.......and I'm sticking to it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #71 December 15, 2005 QuoteSo your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? There's a time for diplomacy and a time for action. When a country has proven to be a threat, and is attempting to develop such weapons, and diplomacy is yielding no results... yes an invasion can be justified. Quote Maybe before they even think about it? Before they think about it? Once again, I'm amazed at how people resort to putting words in my mouth to bolster their views. Where in the world did I (ever) mention anything like that?!?! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Calle 0 #72 December 15, 2005 Because if your president gets do decide wich country to be invaded for the old wmd-reason, any country in the world could be next. To him the line between thinking of making those weapons and actually producing them is very blurry. Maybe Norway next time? They still have some oil left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,679 #73 December 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? There's a time for diplomacy and a time for action. When a country has proven to be a threat, and is attempting to develop such weapons, and diplomacy is yielding no results... yes an invasion can be justified. I hope you are in the first wave ashore when we invade North Korea.... 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 jeiber 0 #74 December 15, 2005 QuoteBecause if your president gets do decide wich country to be invaded for the old wmd-reason Uh, yeah.... last I checked there were quite a few countries that not only supported the invasion, but contributed troops and finances as well. But you go ahead and put it all on one person... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq Oh look... most of Europe, including Poland supported the invasion... Russia? They're not afraid of terrorists... "The KGB kidnapped one of the kidnappers, cut off one of his more personal body parts, and shipped it back to the remaining terrorists. The hostages were freed." JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jeiber 0 #75 December 15, 2005 QuoteI hope you are in the first wave ashore when we invade North Korea. I'm already a veteran... I've done my time. Jeff ps- see message above regarding Korea.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skydiverek 60 #53 December 14, 2005 QuoteIts not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Yeah, it will soon be $300,000,000,000 (three hundred billion)...: http://costofwar.com Also, check the links below the "counter". Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? "Mission Acomplished!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #54 December 14, 2005 >Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? As I recall, a White House budget analyst was fired for predicting the war could cost as much as $150 billion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 December 15, 2005 Quote>Didn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? As I recall, a White House budget analyst was fired for predicting the war could cost as much as $150 billion. That's cheap, considering the alternative of doing nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #56 December 15, 2005 I dont know any people that support thee insurgency so there is no need to debate that issue. We all agree the insurgents are evil assholes. Anyone here that comes on the forum and defends the insurgents will certainly get my and I imagine other people condemnation. But the same is not true for the invasion that is why i and others are loud in condemming it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #57 December 15, 2005 QuoteIts not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. My error. I find it hard to count that high.... 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
rushmc 18 #58 December 15, 2005 ....ya, like on welfare programs that create more bums and buys votes"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #59 December 15, 2005 >That's cheap, considering the alternative of doing nothing. Ironic, then, that he was fired because they thought it was too HIGH a number to be made public. Almost like they were trying to sell a bill of goods . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #60 December 15, 2005 the cost of doing nothing? Yes it would have cost a lot if 1)Saddam had WMD's; Iraq Survey group and UN said he didnt and Bush himself has now admitted this. 2) saddam posed a threat to the world: he didnt, even Powel and Rice admitted this. 3)Saddam had ties to AQ: accordign to all inteligence agencies he didnt. See my post on oprevious page for more details and sources. As to Iran, the mess in Iraq has made it more difficult to deal with that problem. Iraq: no Wmd's - invaded. North korea had WMds - not invaded. What message does that send to Iran? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #61 December 15, 2005 QuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Proceed with your rant, please.... Imagine if Bush had told the truth in 2003. My fellow Americans; UN inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they are right. IAEA inspectors led by the able Mohammad Elbaradei have found no evidence of a nuclear program, and they are correct. All indications from those on the spot are that Iraq's weapons programs were essentially destroyed in 1991 and have not been rebuilt. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to the United States and is a minimal and easily contained threat to its neighbors. Despite VP Cheney's personal beliefs and a detailed investigation, we have found no evidence that Iraq was involved with the despicable events of 9/11. However, we know that Saddam Hussein is a bad man with bad intentions, so we have taken the difficult decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq and oust its government We anticipate that only 2,100 of our wonderful American boys will be killed and 10,000 maimed in the first three years. Some 30,000 Iraqi citizens will be killed, but I'm sure you will agree that this is a necessary sacrifice on their part. The cost will be around $300 Billion, or about $1,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the USA. Of course, we will borrow the money from China and Japan so you will not actually have to come up with the money, you can leave payment to your grandchildren. Thank you, goodnight, and God Bless America Yes, I can see that the public would have gone along readily.... 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
jeiber 0 #62 December 15, 2005 QuoteDidn't Bush say that the war would only cost ONE billion dolars? Your'source' clearly states: QuoteThe Cost of Iraq War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding. How is it that you're allowed to change your numbers at any time you want, based on new information, but you hold Bush to a number he stated YEARS ago - prior to the war? Jeff ps- also, please list a reference (with date) where Bush said it would only cost $1B... and how long ago was that?!?!Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #63 December 15, 2005 Quote30,000 plus civilian deaths Wow... now it's 30,000 civilian deaths... who is it that you're calling a liar again? Who is it that you're accusing of being misleading? QuoteThe justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT Here we go again.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #64 December 15, 2005 QuoteWhat message does that send to Iran? It says to Iran, 'we're coming motherfuckers!'. (Quoted from a cartoon from years ago.) QuoteNorth korea had WMds - not invaded. You're bitching about 32,000 total deaths in Iraq, but you talk about invading North Korea?!?! If we invaded North Korea, we'd be over a million deaths by now... (assuming they didn't use their nukes), and the global economy would be destroyed for decades... If somebody had invaded NK, BEFORE they were such a threat this wouldn't be an issue. Then again, some people don't learn from the lessons of history. Let's let our opponents establish their weapons programs and a strong military before we do anything about it. I'm curious, (hypothetically speaking) do you think a war would have been more costly (lives and financial) if we allowed SH to strengthen his military force and develop WMD's? 'A stitch in time saves nine'. Then again, I'm sure that's foolish advice.... JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #65 December 15, 2005 QuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Do you mean all the insurgents that weren't there before the invasion? Also, with regard to mass graves, you are wrong. Note the date below and do try to keep up! Quote PM admits graves claim 'untrue' Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves. In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.' .... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calle 0 #66 December 15, 2005 So your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? Maybe before they even think about it? Yeah, that would show the "motherfuckers" that you are coming. The biggest threat to the rest of the world is your WMD combined with that attitude and your patriotic thirst for blood. FUBAR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #67 December 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteIsn't it reall great that you forget all the bombings by the insurgency there target mostly civilians? How about the over 350K found in Mass graves, prior this war? Where is the outcry for these victims?....... Do you mean all the insurgents that weren't there before the invasion? Also, with regard to mass graves, you are wrong. Note the date below and do try to keep up! Quote PM admits graves claim 'untrue' Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves. In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.' .... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html Don't bother him with facts, he believes in Bush.... 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 1,679 #68 December 15, 2005 I apologize for the spelling error in the first version, the corrected version is below: The White House: My fellow Americans; UN inspectors under the leadership of Hans Blix have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they are right. IAEA inspectors led by the able Mohammad Elbaradei have found no evidence of a nukular program, and they are correct. All indications from those on the spot are that Iraq's weapons programs were essentially destroyed in 1991 and have not been rebuilt. Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to the United States and is a minimal and easily contained threat to its neighbors. Despite VP Cheney's personal beliefs and a detailed investigation, we have found no evidence that Iraq was involved with the despicable events of 9/11. However, we know that Saddam Hussein is a bad man with bad intentions, so we have taken the difficult decision to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq and oust its government We anticipate that only 2,100 of our wonderful American boys will be killed and 10,000 maimed in the first three years. Some 30,000 Iraqi citizens will be killed, but I'm sure you will agree that this is a necessary sacrifice on their part. The cost will be around $300 Billion, or about $1,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the USA. Of course, we will borrow the money from China and Japan so you will not actually have to come up with the money, you can leave payment to your grandchildren. Thank you, goodnight, and God Bless America ... 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
EricTheRed 0 #69 December 15, 2005 Quote....ya, like on welfare programs that create more bums and buys votes How about on building a few new highways to ease congestion, rebuilding some of the bridges that are falling apart in this country and educating our children. Maybe a few million on health care and a REAL prescription drug plan for those on medicare? I am not a fan of entitlement programs but there are a lot of capital improvements that are required to maintain our own infrastructure. I can't believe that anyone could still say that it was a good investment to invade Iraq.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #70 December 15, 2005 I see your point however, the money spent over there will make things last longer over here because they won't get blown up. Bush was right.......and I'm sticking to it!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #71 December 15, 2005 QuoteSo your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? There's a time for diplomacy and a time for action. When a country has proven to be a threat, and is attempting to develop such weapons, and diplomacy is yielding no results... yes an invasion can be justified. Quote Maybe before they even think about it? Before they think about it? Once again, I'm amazed at how people resort to putting words in my mouth to bolster their views. Where in the world did I (ever) mention anything like that?!?! JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calle 0 #72 December 15, 2005 Because if your president gets do decide wich country to be invaded for the old wmd-reason, any country in the world could be next. To him the line between thinking of making those weapons and actually producing them is very blurry. Maybe Norway next time? They still have some oil left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #73 December 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo your suggestion is to invade every country before they produce WMD? There's a time for diplomacy and a time for action. When a country has proven to be a threat, and is attempting to develop such weapons, and diplomacy is yielding no results... yes an invasion can be justified. I hope you are in the first wave ashore when we invade North Korea.... 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
jeiber 0 #74 December 15, 2005 QuoteBecause if your president gets do decide wich country to be invaded for the old wmd-reason Uh, yeah.... last I checked there were quite a few countries that not only supported the invasion, but contributed troops and finances as well. But you go ahead and put it all on one person... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq Oh look... most of Europe, including Poland supported the invasion... Russia? They're not afraid of terrorists... "The KGB kidnapped one of the kidnappers, cut off one of his more personal body parts, and shipped it back to the remaining terrorists. The hostages were freed." JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #75 December 15, 2005 QuoteI hope you are in the first wave ashore when we invade North Korea. I'm already a veteran... I've done my time. Jeff ps- see message above regarding Korea.Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
