Bush's Bill for War Is Rising

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warcost3feb03,0,7464622.story
     
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    This war looks certain to eventually cost over $1 trillion. And they fired someone for saying it would cost $100 to $200 billion.

    Gotta love the Bush administration.
     
  3. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    You're darn right you do. Or else. ;)
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    Why do they let themselves get pigeonholed into "voting against the troops"? They should vote against the adminstration, and make that clear.

    "I will vote to fund the military adventure in Iraq as soon as the President shows me a viable plan for winning the war and bringing our troops home. Anyting less would be irresponsible and amount to throwing good money after bad."
     
  5. Qoxiivi macrumors regular

    Qoxiivi

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    "In the spring of 2003, top administration officials, including then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, said Iraq's vast oil reserves would help defray the costs of an extended U.S. stay. Nearly three years later, oil revenue is far below expectations and the Iraqi government can pay for only a small fraction of its reconstruction."

    The American taxpayer has funded the war - the oil revenues will go to private corporations. Simple as.

    **Don't worry, the money I steal from your house will be about equal to the damages I cause to your property by breaking in - so we're even.**

    Ok, so it's an inexact analogy, but it makes about as much sense.
     
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #6
    I have maintained for about 2 years now that if the administration had simply fired everyone they have promoted or given medals to, and kept everyone that they forced to leave that we would probably be in a much better situation right now. Lindsey being one of the prime examples. It has appeared to me that the administration tends to fire anyone who tells the truth and hangs on to anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

    Of course Brownie was the exception that proves the rule..... of course he wasn't fired until well after everything he touched was FUBAR.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    It's the American version of redistributive taxation.
     
  8. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #8
    Umm... well true... It's costing money. However, consider where most of the money goes. It goes to defense contractors who employ Americans to design/build weapons and materials. Therefore, the money actually is an injection into the American economy.

    WWII actually pulled the US out of the depression. The war in Iraq has actually helped the economy to some sense.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    True, but it's a short-term boost to the economy and is bad for the economy's overall health. While it helps maintain current levels of production, it creates a debt burden without adding any actual long-term value to the economy.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    And when Blackwater, Halliburton, Carlyle and the rest have filled themselves to bursting at the bottomless trough of other peoples' misery, what then? Why, they have to sell their expanded production to any vile and unsavoury regime which wants it. Then one of these regimes will join the Axis of Evil and you'll have to start another war. Plenty of opportunity for testing new weapons systems, though, I suppose.
    So the war started by George Bush, which has cost a minimum of 35,000 lives so far, indeed any war, is a good thing because of its economic benefits? Wow! Which course did you learn that on? You don't think that almost the whole of European and Japanese industry being reduced to ashes and penury after WW2 had anything to do with it?
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    Precisely: war is probably the least productive avenue of investment that exists.
     
  12. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #12
    It's interesting to read this article written in January 2003:

    Link to article
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  14. Blackheart macrumors 6502a

    Blackheart

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    Sorry, I just feel the need to point out political spin when I see it. Please research the average yearly casualties in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    Well, sorry, I feel it necessary to point out that you are happily comparing US "liberation" with a dictatorial regime. Perhaps you could provide a link.
     
  16. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #16
    Yeah, but Hussein was a trained professional with years of experience. Mr. Bush is just starting to get the hang of it. Give the guy a little more time and he'll get his numbers up. :(
     
  17. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #17
    What on earth is "spin" about the 35,000 figure? Is anyone denying it? are you denying it? If so, what is your evidence.

    As I'm sure you know, many think the figure is far higher. Skunk has chosen the lowest widely accepted figure.

    There is no spin there.

    Now, what was the avarage figure under Saddam? I'll let YOU do the work if you have a point to make.

    PS Please make sure your number is based on authoratative and widely accepted sources - not some politically motivated statistic plucked from the sky.
     
  18. Blackheart macrumors 6502a

    Blackheart

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #18
    Rougly 50,000 per year.

    The "spin" is what leftists have applied to the 35,000 casualties figure. It's been made out to seem like a lot (<--don't read too far into this word), when in comparison to Hussein it is a 76.6% fall in Iraqi casualties.

    To look at it as though President Bush is slaughtering the Iraqi people, is the political spin and "negative nancy" viewpoint.
    _____
    * 35,000/3 ~ 11,700 per year

    11,700/50,000 = 23.4%

    100% - 23.4% = 76.6%
     
  19. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #19
    Link please.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    No link, I see.

    A specious if not pernicious argument. Do you work in advertising? That's like saying "You'll save $5 if you spend $45 on this piece of useless junk", without pointing out that you'd save another $45 by not getting it at all.

    "Negative Nancy"? You mean I'm not butch enough to appreciate a bit of random slaughter?

    Taking the larger estimated figure of 100,000+ makes your rather dodgy accounting rather irrelevant too.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    Funny, I don't seem to be able to find a link to that 50,000 figure anywhere. :confused:
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    i only found this.
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
  24. Blackheart macrumors 6502a

    Blackheart

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #24
    Linky

    Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out how this relates. :confused:

    What I meant, was that there are people who choose to see no good, no matter what. They are the pessimists of our nation. Unless, of course, the leader wears a blue tie.

    Taking all of the values (referenced in the article), and dividing them over the number of years they were reported to occur (1983-2003), I came out with roughly 40,000 casualties per year. Discounting 2000-2003 (looks like he got bored?), there were ~49,500. No matter which value you use, there are less people dying per year under Hussein's rule, than under US occupation.

    Oh, and for the sake of adding unfounded claim... I'm SURE he killed more people than that! ;)
     
  25. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #25

Share This Page