Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Feb 3, 2006.
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.
You're darn right you do. Or else.
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."
"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.
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.
It's the American version of redistributive taxation.
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.
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.
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?
Precisely: war is probably the least productive avenue of investment that exists.
It's interesting to read this article written in January 2003:
Link to article
Thanks for that link. I rest my case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
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.
Funny, I don't seem to be able to find a link to that 50,000 figure anywhere.
i only found this.
Ho bloody ho!
To be fair, though, I did eventually find this:
Very convincing arguments. Not.
Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out how this relates.
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!
Ah - I think we now know where Blackheart goes when he wants information without "political spin".