Study: War Will Cost $2,000,000,000,000

I saw serious estimates from the Bush people that Iraq would cost $1.5 billion in total. This was in early 2003.

Now we can't even Bush excited over flat losing $9 billion in that country.

Nine billion dollars. That would have paid for six Iraq wars in the days when someone still seriously thought Bush knew what he was doing.

If we had done the clinton thing and bombed the shit out of iraq from 30,000 feet it would have only cost 1% of that .

But then the libscum would be pissing themselves over how much collateral damage was done .
We all know that the leftys like their death count , it is a psychological tool to help aid and abett the enemy , kinda like the DOW hitting 11000 , the left anxiously await the death of the 2500th American in iraq .GOD , please don't let another enemy find it's way into America , we all know that lefty's saturated diapers would not hold the enemy back .

chump change for democracy.

i feel safer already

While i agree with the war, I feel we should have leveled the country so they would reilize we take no prisoners.

But thanks to the LIBS we have to be careful not to kill a crawling bug or fish in a lake.

God forbid a civlian gets hurt during a war. Thats what happens people die things break and we level buildings.

Apparenly you feel 3 times safer than I do.

This is unbearable. Even at 1 trillion. This is just the financial costs, too. This really sucks.

I say I say I say

good good good truth.

take a valium to calm the jittery fingers bubs.

Rightnut, why don't you stop making a boob out of yourself and at least muster some brain cells to try and wheel out a statement/argument that makes some sense? Your paranoid delusions about "libscum" are pathetically infantile.

It doesn't bother you, the projected $2 trillion?

I thought GOPers liked balanced budgets.

Oh, sorry, they like to talk about balanced budgets.

All hat and no cattle.

It doesn't bother Rightshill- he is a "fiscal conservative", and their mantra is "deficits don't matter".

Nine times more than WWII and nothing to show for it, except higher oil prices and deficits as far as the eye can see.

So 2 trilion is too much to pay for "democracy" in the middle east?

I find it also extremely "interesting" logic that those that want the troops out of harms way are accused by some to celebrate every troop death... while those that insist that the troops MUST stay and consequently die are some how supporting and protecting them...but then those are the same that think that fighting an undermaned,,, underequiped,,, and poorly planned war is somehow the way our troops should be "supported" also...

Truely a bazzarro world we have here for sure...

Wonderful! Only two trillion dollars to create a new Islamic Republic (or province of Iran). Onward to victory! And congrats to Osama, you couldn't have done it without us.
Niceville, how do you plan to pay for it?

Niceville's children and ours will pay for it.

Or perhaps GW will be willing to werk off the debt after he is retired. Out of his Carlysle money.... should be plenty for delivering Iraq.

Bush's War, after all. Pre-meditated, pre-emptive, and pre-mature.

The bill for a war of choice should go to the chooser.

Especially after he turns out to have been not only so completely WRONG about the reasons to go to war, but once at war, he and his minions turn out to be completely incompetent to boot.

That's US$20,000 per working person for those of you who are keeping track of such things.

Unless you're counting on getting out of your fair share via the Rapture. Which wouldn't be fair since 'you're' the ones who got 'us' into this crusade in the first place. WWJSkip town on?

God bless you all.

May 2002 Future of Iraq Project was funded by congress....

"In September, Lawrence Lindsay, then the chief White House economic adviser, broke discipline. He was asked by The Wall Street Journal how much a war and its aftermath might cost. He replied that it might end up at one to two percent of the gross domestic product, which would mean $100 billion to $200 billion. Lindsay added that he thought the cost of not going to war could conceivably be greater--but that didn't placate his critics within the Administration. The Administration was further annoyed by a report a few days later from Democrats on the House Budget Committee, which estimated the cost of the war at $48 billion to $93 billion. Lindsay was widely criticized in "background" comments from Administration officials, and by the end of the year he had been forced to resign. His comment "made it clear Larry just didn't get it," an unnamed Administration offical told the washington post after Lindsay left."

www.epic-usa.org

br />
The power vacuum that led to looting was disastrous. "The looting was not a surprise," Sandra Mitchell told me. "It should not have come as a surprise. Anyone who has witnessed the fall of a regime while another force is coming in on a temporary basis knows that looting is standard procedure. In Iraq there were very strong signals that this could be the period of greatest concern for humanitarian response." One lesson of postwar reconstruction through the 1990s was that even a short period of disorder could have long-lasting effects."

This doesnt fit here but ... P. Bremmer happened to say the exact opposite on NPR today...ie... the insurgency was unexpected...The bush admin. is getting some serious use out of this "HOW CAN WE EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED" excuse...

lol

Here's the kicker....

"But early in December, just before Lindsay was forced out, The New York Review of Books published an article by William Nordhaus titled "Iraq: The Economic Consequences of War," which included carefully considered estimates. Nordhaus, an economist at Yale, had served on Jimmy Carter's Council of Economic Advisers; the article was excerpted from a much longer economic paper he had prepared. His range of estimates was enormous, depending on how long the war lasted and what its impact on the world economy proved to be. Nordhaus calculated that over the course of a decade the direct and indirect costs of the war to the United States could be as low as $121 billion or as high as $1.6 trillion. This was a more thoroughgoing approach than the congressional budget committees had taken, but it was similar in its overall outlook. Nordhaus told me recently that he thinks he should have increased all his estimates to account for the "opportunity costs" of stationing soldiers in Iraq--that is, if they are assigned to Iraq, they're not available for deployment somewhere else."

Thats DEC. 2002... The low ball estimate is a common tactic also it seems..

Got to love those BUSH MORALS eh?

What "Democracy" in the Middle East? So you REALLY mean Iraq? Yes they voted for it-so in a round about Technical "sort of" way-they have a "Democracy". Their "Democracy" is more "Theocracy", You think Sodom was a "Bad Man"? Think the Taliban were "Bad Men"? Wait'll these guys get their groove goin'-cause-you ain't seen nuthin'. Not only is it going to get worse than the Taliban-it's also going to be fostered by Iran. Perfect revenge for them, BTW. We gave Sodom the weapons and Chemicals and Biologicals he used on them. Mow-with the help of the NEWEST Iraqi Gov. Iran is going to have it's revenge. Nice goin' retards...
Now, Iran MAY be going to start to weaponize Uranium-can we have any rethug guess as to WHY they're doing it NOW?
(Crickets Chirping).....
Our Military is a spent force-thanx to duhhhbya's NEED for endless war, we aren't going to be able to rehabilitate the Military Cheaply-which means-boys and girls-that it's going to take a VERY long time.
It isn't going to be a matter of will-Americans-LEFT and right, have stepped up in times of dire need and filled out the ranks. That's not the issue-it's going to be the equipment that's going to need to be replaced-and it's all very expensive. Are we going to borrow the money for it from China? Are we going to go to The world monetary fund and beg for a handout? Are the millionaire and billionaire weasels who've made sooo much off this war going to step up to the plate with donations to pay for it?
When you can Honestly answer these questions You will have had a REAL thought-not just reiterated Right or Left Wing talking points......

maybe we can cut some corners and cheapen up the war....lets start with the body armor....then we can lighten up the humvees a little.. better gas mileage means less gas...how about not as much supporting arms...lets cut out the air...its not like we are fighting an air war here....hell lets step it up a notch...the troops only need 1 MRE that it self is a 3000 cal diet...finally we can cut into the veterans benifits...its not like they need the heath care...hell we are at war the vets need to sacrifice...what....do the troops think we need to sacrifice...hahahahahaha....we didnt start this war...why should we pay...the troops are the ones who signed up....let them fight their commander and cheif war.. they support him...let them sacrifice...let them pay

cmbell-you disingenuous phucktard-you ought to know better than that little bit of retarded bullshit-once duhhhbya's endless wars are a thing of the past-how do we pay for rebuilding the Military?

Don't answer the questions you'd WISH I'd asked-answer the ones I'd actually asked-asswipe.

This whole war could have been carried out more efficiently if we had out-sourced the operation.

We could have hired Saddam to bomb himself. Think Catch-22 where Milo had the American B-25s bomb the USAAF airfield for the Germans. It could work.

Or the Chinese could have been hired. They can use the practice. Kind of a warm-up for the Taiwan invasion.

Business is business. You'd think a MBA president would know that.

why do we need a military...we are headed down the path of isolationism....let the mighty UN handle the worlds problems

The only things the rethugs HAVEN'T done is cut back on the air war-and we've OPPOSED that every stelp of the way. Then again-that's NOT what I asked-How'bout it?

cmbell-is the 73 in your handle the year you were born-or your IQ?

Boy-those cricket's hind legs are gettin' a workout tonite. I post honest questions and all I get is more bullshit from the right. After all-it's not like that wasn't the kind of response from them I expected.

What an unbelievable waste of money. Tax cuts without decreases in spending don't make you a conservative. They make you an idiot. I'd be even more outraged at the amount spent on this war if I wasn't so used to our government wasting money.

Well Joe-they did actually decrease spending, at least-by their lights. They cut a lot of social programs-Health and Safety-that kind of thing. The REAL problem was, They shouldn't have had those big tax cuts in the first place. We could not afford them-we cannot afford to sustain them. This is the real lunacy of the duhhhbya menstruation.
They bitch and bitch about welfare mothers and people on food stamps and unemployment insurance.
Yet-when they get in power what do they do?
Corporate and Rich Folks Welfare-how stupid does ANYONE have to be to accept their lies? I'll tell you-they're stupid enough-that if they were brain damaged and had a frontal lobotmy-no one would know the difference......

Frank,

what sort of health and safety cuts were made?

I haven't heard anyone in the Bush admin. bitch about welfare mothers. Have they made cuts in welfare?

I wasn't making my previous statement to open up the floodgates to the run-of-the-mill bush-bashing that you've just exhibited. All I was saying that the spending being done by a supposedly "conservative" administration is very counter-intuitive.

hell you would think that the president saved his ass in the begining of the war by entering iraq with only a handful of troops....imagine all the money we saved in the begining of the war...hell what we need are coupons....2 for 1 on bullets...1/2 off on the next war or something...we need to save save save...blue light special on T-55 buy one get one free

recycling....thats another way of saving...we can bring back all the blown up humvees and shot down helcopters....or better consolidation....get 2 troops to share a flack jacket...we will do what the navy does on subs "hot rack"....it will be called "hot flack"...do what the russians did in WWII...one person carries the rifle the other carries the ammo...when one goes down the 2nd grabs the rifle...boy all the money we can save

Here's Nicevoids best argument against abortion.

Someone will have to be around to pay for it.

Thirty years from know I really honestly hope this little escapade is referred to as "Bush's War"... Too bad none of us will care because we'll still be paying it off in thirty years.

Maybe we should have only that 51% of you who voted for this tool a 2nd time pay it off.

Unless you voted for one of the over 100 democrat congressmen that approved the war resolution. Right?

Hmmm, right wingers go berserk when a welfare mother uses her food stamps to buy steak, but billions go missing in Iraq, and the costs of this misbegotten war spiral out of control, and you hear nary a peep from the so-called "fiscal conservatives." What rank hypocrisy.

Barry Goldwater, were he alive, would be aghast at the charlatans posing as "conservatives" these days. At least Goldwater had some integrity. Today's GOP has basically turned itself into a mirror image of the criticism they used to heap (with some justification) on the Democrats when they were in power.

Impeach Impeach Impeach

Unless you voted for one of the over 100 democrat congressmen that approved the war resolution. Right?

There was no "war resolution".
Amazing, that the last "argument" of the Bushies is now to blame others for their war.

Those who opposed this war also get blamed that the ill concieved folly is going badly. Republiconfabulators just don't get that supporting a bad idea will never make it good or bring about success.

Come on you right wing fuck ups. Give me a count of how many Islamic nations thirsting for democracy have boots on the ground in Iraq in support of the cause. Here it is:0

Stupid pricks sold your children for a $300 tax rebate.

2 trillion, thats nothing for this administration.

2,000,000,000,000
Two thousand billion
Two million million

Never in the history of mankind has so much money been spent on so little. What exactly did that $2,000,000,000,000.00 buy us?

300.00 tax rebate

2 trillion would have paid for a lot of childcare and support for single mothers trying to decide what to do about being pregnant. But, as Niceville points out, we can always abort them. It's a choice the Republicans and Bushies support, apparently.
2 trillion to help the Iranians take over Iraq. Geez, Reagan had stuff eating his brain away and he still MADE money helping the Iranians.

2 trillion would have paid for a lot of childcare and support for single mothers trying to decide what to do about being pregnant.

People with jobs can pay for their own childcare. Rewarding people who are not married, who are unable to support children, whether that support be emotional, spiritual, intellectual or monetary, should not be rewarded with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for having children.

$2 trillion would build a whole bunch of B-2 bombers, F-22s and aircraft carriers.

"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Every nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations. ...

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953."

Dwight D. Eisenhower's "Chance for Peace" speech (April 16, 1953)
www.famousquotes.me.uk

"$2 trillion would build a whole bunch of B-2 bombers, F-22s and aircraft carriers.Posted by stopthebox_itch"

I believe that was Eisenhower's point.

People with jobs can pay for their own childcare

you are an idiot.

Unless you voted for one of the over 100 democrat congressmen that approved the war resolution. Right?

well actually the resolution said something else, but why let facts get in the way.

It's nto a "fact" until Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld says it's a "fact." And then it's either a "myth" or a "delusion" (or both).

face facts, our nation's economy is based on the military industrial complex. half a trillion dollars spent on defense, creates its own need for violence and war. We act imperialistically and wonder why people hate us. We exploit the poor and defenseless and wonder why people want to kill us. We use vastly more natural resources than any other country and whine about paying $2 for a gallon of gas to fill our hummers. We prop up dictators and monarchs who supress their people and wonder why those countries become our enemies.

These are the root causes for Iraq and the "war on terror". Until we do something about them we will continue to be in this perpetual state of conflict. Dont think for a minute big business doesnt love it, they are making a killing. And now you have a lobbyist-legislature that decides policy to enrich itself. Get used to it.

chump change for democracy.

Posted by niceville at 2006-01-10 10:05 PM | Reply

Well then you pay for it.

People with jobs can pay for their own childcare. Rewarding people who are not married, who are unable to support children, whether that support be emotional, spiritual, intellectual or monetary, should not be rewarded with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for having children.

$2 trillion would build a whole bunch of B-2 bombers, F-22s and aircraft carriers.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2006-01-11 08:15 AM | Reply

Elitism at it's best or worst.

Why not boxhead? You get the benefit of other peoples money every single day through the police force that protects you, the streets that you drive on, the military that protects our nation.

Hypocrite.

niceville like most republicans is childlike in that they want something for nothing. They are the gimme gimme gimme party. They of course dont want to pay for anything.

and health insurance and fire protection and planning and zoning protections and worker safety and environmental protection and water and sewer services and etc etc etc

Are were more at risk to terrorist now or pre 911? Nobody knows why we went to Iraq. The President said he would still have gone to war with Iraq knowing what he knows now and has blocked all research into what he knew when he was making his rationale for war.

Why he decided to take the focus off Bin Laden is beyond most. There never was a link between Bin Laden and 911 as the administration claimed. Nobody knows why he made that claim.

Suddenly its OUR FAULT. Man ... do you people EVER TAKE RESPONSIBILITY ? EVER ???

Here's how it works fellas ... you walked into the voting booth and pulled the lever for a stumbling bumbling fool of a man who was obviously in way way over his head. He's made mistake after mistake after mistake and driven the country nearly over the edge. He continues to flaunt the law, spend like a drunken sailor, make lame excuses for a war of choice that he sold scaring the daylights out of everyone .. (mushroom clouds on the horizon remember?)
and lets not forget those tax cuts he was giving all of us despite the war that was to cost NOTHING - it was all to be paid out of oil revenue.

GUESS WHAT .. HE WAS WRONG (Brownie you're doing a hellava job)

And so NOW ... you jerks dare to claim that its all the fault of those on the left who would scream about bombing because of civilian damage ??

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU SUPPORT.

GZ,

Your side ran OzoneAl Gore and Senator Tongue Flicker Lurch against him!!!!

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU SUPPORT.

Why don't we just take the oil like we were going to do in the first place to cover the war costs. A trillion dollars in oil is only like 20 billion barrels. My bike leaks that in a summer.

"Apparenly you feel 3 times safer than I do.

This is unbearable. Even at 1 trillion. This is just the financial costs, too. This really sucks.

Posted by yav at 2006-01-10 10:13 PM | Reply"

What's in yer wallet?

Fribo,

"There was no "war resolution".

Really? archives.cnn.com

"Amazing, that the last "argument" of the Bushies is now to blame others for their war."

That's not what I was doing. NuclearPenguin had said that only the people that voted for Bush should have to pay for the Iraq war. I was merely noting that if you voted for one of the many congressmen that also approved of the war, you are no better. After all, there have been other votes in the Senate to appropriate these massive amounts of funds to the war, and they have passed overwhelmingly. Furthermore, John Kerry said that he wouldn't pull the troops out from Iraq had he been elected, so the money would still be getting spent over there.

ITCH,

I do ... and the country would be in a much much better place had either taken office.

But whats a trillion bucks and a few thousand lives to wage a family revenge war eh?

"if you voted for one of the many congressmen that also approved of the war, you are no better"

Remember these Congress people were hearing the same bullshit that all of us were hearing - mushroom clouds on the horizon etc. No question that with 9/11 still very much part of the American day to day reality (at least it was here in Manhattan) it didn't take very much to put the fear of a nuke out there. Just go back and review what Cheney and Rice were saying on all the Sunday talk shows ... frightening stuff and all horse shit.

"After all, there have been other votes in the Senate to appropriate these massive amounts of funds to the war, and they have passed overwhelmingly."

Duh ... once our troops are there they get everything they need as it should be regardless of whether its right or wrong. The troops have nothing at all to do with the politics of it.

"Furthermore, John Kerry said that he wouldn't pull the troops out from Iraq had he been elected, so the money would still be getting spent over there."

No thinking person can support a black and white pullout now ... now we have to keep a presence and slowly pullback when Iraqis can replace us.
Another words instead of this nonsense about "staying the course" which will accomplish little except more of the same and is really a cover for "we don't have a clue", we need to redeploy exactly like our military officers told Bill Murtha.

And ITCH,

Does it make you feel better about the fool in the oval office when you add your silly nicknames to Al Gore and John Kerry both who would have been an enormous improvement - it just seems like you need to tear them down because Bush has proved to be a complete joke bordering on an embarrassment.

"Remember these Congress people were hearing the same bullshit that all of us were hearing - mushroom clouds on the horizon etc."

It is their job, as someone with the power to turn the political tide in our country, to fully research what they are voting on before they vote on it. You voted for a dem. That dem voted yes on the war. You are no less financially responsible for that war than someone that voted for a republican. End of story.

"Duh ... once our troops are there they get everything they need as it should be regardless of whether its right or wrong."

That's not the point. The point is that the money is being appropriated by democrats just as easily as republicans, and very few of them actually question when the war will end or why so much money is necessary.

"No thinking person can support a black and white pullout now"

Then don't bitch when the meter continues to run.

***Study: War Will Cost $2,000,000,000,000***

It may cost a heckuva lot more. If the Iraqi's sue for war reparations instead of throwing rose petals at us, we could wind up having to pay to rebuild all those cities we levelled as well as death and injury benefits for the Iraqi population.

And ITCH,

Does it make you feel better about the fool in the oval office when you add your silly nicknames to Al Gore and John Kerry both who would have been an enormous improvement - it just seems like you need to tear them down because Bush has proved to be a complete joke bordering on an embarrassment.

Posted by GZlives at 2006-01-11 12:15 PM

Get real, Bush was officially an embarrassment for years! He will most likely be remembered as the worst pres ever, but for sure in the top 5!

People with jobs can pay for their own childcare. Rewarding people who are not married, who are unable to support children, whether that support be emotional, spiritual, intellectual or monetary, should not be rewarded with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for having children.

$2 trillion would build a whole bunch of B-2 bombers, F-22s and aircraft carriers.

Thank you very much Mr. "Fuck 'em once they're outside the womb" for your candid response. Children who are brought into this world by parents who cannot take of them are definately to blame. I mean why give a disadvantaged child a fair shake in this country? They should have known better than to assoicate themselves with parents that cannot take care of them. Why even be concerned with children with incapable parents, we should just incorporate them into prisons ASAP, so that way they can learn a skill like making motorcycles for private companies at a slave wage level.

Nine times more than WWII and nothing to show for it, except higher oil prices and deficits as far as the eye can see.

Don't forget to add in several thousand dead American soldiers and an economy spiralling downward into disaster.

The sperm and egg donors who do not take responsibility for the children they brought into this world are definitely to blame. Taking my money and rewarding them for their foolishness, misguided selfishness and child abuse IS NOT SOUND POLICY.

Quit apologizing and making excuses for losers. You are starting to sound like Brwio, Roma and GZ.

And GZ ... Gore and Kerry are fools. Bush was and still is a better choice than both.

I wonder what Nicey thinks about his party nuking "Kids Care", and other health programs for children born into poverty?

I'm guessing he doesn't give a shit, since it was done by the Republifundies in order to fund an illegal (and strategically stupid) war.

Fuck 'em once they leave the womb, huh Nicey?

And GZ ... Gore and Kerry are fools. Bush was and still is a better choice than both.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2006-01-11 01:24 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

By what measure? If you measure success as implimenting Al Qaeda's objectives, than yeah, Osama Bin Boxitch is correct.

"And GZ ... Gore and Kerry are fools. Bush was and still is a better choice than both."

Speaks volumes for your own powers of assessment. And I'm sure by now you know better but stubborness and ego get in your way from owning up to it.

Bush a better choice then both ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhA - not unless you're referring to the local dogcatcher. Had he not been born a "Bush" he wouldn't have a job at the local WalMart

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhA
-----
Wow, that is some serious laughter!

"chump change for democracy."

Posted by niceville at 2006-01-10 10:05 PM | Reply

The only CHUMPS are those, like NicEVIL1E, who believe this tripe...

2 Trillion Dollars is suddenly Chump change? This comes from the same party that tried to outlaw working overtime for the common American earlier this year, that wants to throw out the Social Security Savings Net of millions of working age Americans in favor of "privitization" of our savings, so that more of those trustworthy banks and trust companies can charge us more money and fees so that we can actually get to our money, and that held some 200 meetings with questionable campaign backers like Abramoff...you know, the same people that gave us WMD's (Weapons of Mass Deception) to justify the expansion of the War on Terror into Iraq, so we could "justify" the handing out of "No Bid Contracts" to Mr. Chenney and his friends, and get more Good American Soldiers Killed in a war for Oil...

You know for a country that cant seem to ever fund Education upgrades, or Health Care reform, or things that truly affect the well being of the average American, we sure do know how to waste billions, nay trillions, on taking care of the Corporate Elite and Well Connected in this country...

Tell me NicEVIL1e...how much are you getting paid by the RNC to spam this site with your right wing propaganda...or is your last name just Chenney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Abramoff? Or, Perhaps you just work for Enron or Exxon?

Inquiring Minds would like to know...

i feel safer already

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-01-10 10:08 PM | Reply

i feel safer already

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-01-10 10:08 PM | Reply

i feel safer already

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-01-10 10:08 PM | Reply

----

Truth Razor Condoms for triple the protection!

Remember Truth Hurts!

The sperm and egg donors who do not take responsibility for the children they brought into this world are definitely to blame. Taking my money and rewarding them for their foolishness, misguided selfishness and child abuse IS NOT SOUND POLICY.

As opposed to sending underequipped, underarmored, understaffed army into a warzone with no battleplan following their "catastrophically successful" invasion? One man's foolish, misguided selfishness is another man's "spreading of freedom" I guess.

Since you completed the "passing out the blame" phase of the situation, we can now go back to the "Sucks to be you that your parents sucked, now go fuck yourself and cook my fries" defense. Ahh yes, how would Jesus tell poor kids to fuck off?

Quit apologizing and making excuses for losers.

You first.

This statement proves to me that you don't know a thing about what you are talking about. " As opposed to sending underequipped, underarmored, understaffed army into a warzone with no battleplan following their "catastrophically successful" invasion?"

There has never been a better equipped, better armored army in the history of humanity than the US Army sent into Iraq. They did indeed have battle plans after the invasion. Multi-layered, multi-faceted plans. They didn't tell you what they were, but why should they?

No one is telling poor kids to "fuck off' other than bleeding heart neo-libs who think that a lifetime derived from Government entitlements provides a human being with dignity. Sperm and egg donors are not necessarily parents. There is a whole lot more to being a parent than having sex. Guess that little fact never crossed your mind.

I don't apologize and make excuses for losers. There is no need for me to go first; however you should proceed.

Selling out our future for Israel. Sickening.

Box-itch,

In the most recent edition of "Car and Driver" I read an interesting article about a new vehicle being developed to replace the humvee. What I found interesting was the article cited the following regarding army humvee's:

1. 25 - year old design
2. Designed to carry 4400 lbs. of person and equipment.
3. Body armor for a humvee weighs 5000 lbs. - which exceeds the vehicle's capacity even before persons and cargo are boarded.
4. All of this weight is disastrous to the vehicles already dismal acceleration, handling, brakning - which are all critical in performing any type of evasive manuevers.
5. Average distance between breakdown on the 'armored' humvees is 300 miles.

In short, the armour seems to do more harm than good. What good is armor if it causes a blown tire and grounds the vehicle during a fire-fight? I guess it speaks to 'going to war with the equipment we have'.

What's peculiar is that we never learn about this in the MSM when cries for more humvee armour are screeched.

Regarding that vehicle in development:

1. It uses armor made up of 2 sheets of aluminum with 'classified materials' in between. This causes the armor to be 'far' lighter than the current plates.

2. The armor is a bunch of triangles all set at different directions (think of the big ball at EPCOT). This increases the likelihood of deflection vs. direct shell impact.

3. the 4 seats are in the middle and face: forward, backward, left and right. This provides a full field of vision and places the passengers further away from the edges of the vehicle - less exposure to impact.

4. The seats are also positioned further away from the floor - diminishing risk of injury from mines, IED's, etc.

5. The seats ALL have a sophisticated airbag and suspension system, which insulates against concussion shock.

6. Considerable racing technology has been employed to make the vehicle as light and agile as possible.

Who knows if it will ever come to fruition, but it certainly appears to be a clever design.

A better armored vehicle...

Followed by a more powerful IED...

Followed by a better armored vehicle...

Followed by a more powerful IED...

War is evolutionary as hell.

The USA was attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941, so FDR declared war and immediately sent troops to fight GERMANY.

Harry Truman sent US troops to fight in Korea, but Korea never attacked us.

JFK and LBJ quagmired us in Vietnam, but the Cong never attacked us.

And you think somehow that W has it all wrong? LOL

-C

PS Although a lot of people thought there might be a Saddam-9/11 connection early on, this theory didn't last long. It has been proven, though, that Saddam did support al Quaeda and other terrorists quite extravagantly.

"It has been proven, though, that Saddam did support al Quaeda and other terrorists quite extravagantly."

Really?

Please supply support for your claim that "Saddam did support al Qaeda...quite extravagantly."

Common-
Where has this "been proven"?

The USA was attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941, so FDR declared war and immediately sent troops to fight GERMANY.

germany declared war on us, dipshit. I'm so tired of you guys trying to make paralells between WWII and this PR Bullshit War on terra we have now.

Want to compare? Fine.

4 years after the US entered WWII it won. Germany and Japan had surrendered, and rebuilding commenced. There were some insurgent activities, but nothing major.

4 years after 9-11, we still have two wars going on, massive insurgencies in iraq, poppy production going UP in afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden is nowhere to be found.

Yes, let's keep comparing Now to WWII...

Cuz Bush isn't fit to be FDR or Trumans bellybutton lint.

Cuz Bush isn't fit to be FDR or Trumans bellybutton lint.

Posted by alexandrite at 2006-01-11 06:27 PM | Reply

Or a Piece of Nixons Toe Jam.

Larry

maybe we can cut some corners and cheapen up the war....lets start with the body armor....then we can lighten up the humvees a little.. better gas mileage means less gas...how about not as much supporting arms...lets cut out the air...its not like we are fighting an air war here....hell lets step it up a notch...the troops only need 1 MRE that it self is a 3000 cal diet...finally we can cut into the veterans benifits...its not like they need the heath care...hell we are at war the vets need to sacrifice...what....do the troops think we need to sacrifice...hahahahahaha....we didnt start this war...why should we pay...the troops are the ones who signed up....let them fight their commander and cheif war.. they support him...let them sacrifice...let them pay

Common-
You've posted several times on this blog since I directly challenged you to provide evidence of your claim, and yet you have not answered.

hell you would think that the president saved his ass in the begining of the war by entering iraq with only a handful of troops....imagine all the money we saved in the begining of the war...hell what we need are coupons....2 for 1 on bullets...1/2 off on the next war or something...we need to save save save...blue light special on T-55 buy one get one free....or better consolidation....get 2 troops to share a flack jacket...we will do what the navy does on subs "hot rack"....it will be called "hot flack"...do what the russians did in WWII...one person carries the rifle the other carries the ammo...when one goes down the 2nd grabs the rifle...boy all the money we can save

We need to start sending Bush Voters over there. Consider it a limited draft in the vein of "put your money where your mouth is"

Best way to end a war is to send the kids of important people.

Common, I too would like to see this evidence...and WB Boyd. You were missed.

But then the libscum would be pissing themselves over how much collateral damage was done .
We all know that the leftys like their death count , it is a psychological tool to help aid and abett the enemy , kinda like the DOW hitting 11000 , the left anxiously await the death of the 2500th American in iraq .GOD , please don't let another enemy find it's way into America , we all know that lefty's saturated diapers would not hold the enemy back .

Posted by rightnut at 2006-01-10 10:02 PM | Reply

If ever there was a deflection..... Can't you simply address the fact that your idol lied (or is retarded, the jury is stillout). Quit deflecting the SIMPLE fact that 1.5 billion is what the people were told. Shit, 9 billion has already been siphoned off into Bush's retirement fund. Deflect onward!!

While i agree with the war, I feel we should have leveled the country so they would reilize we take no prisoners.

But thanks to the LIBS we have to be careful not to kill a crawling bug or fish in a lake.

God forbid a civlian gets hurt during a war. Thats what happens people die things break and we level buildings.

Posted by Good_ole_ted at 2006-01-10 10:13 PM | Reply

YOU are truly insane! Kill all the iraqis in order to liberate them??? WTF?

Common-
I'm still waiting.

(sorry..that was to "commontater")

2 TRILLION DOLLARS...This should be the new Deocratic Party Rally Cry.

Unless you voted for one of the over 100 democrat congressmen that approved the war resolution. Right?

Posted by joe at 2006-01-11 02:14 AM | Reply

Blah, Blah, Blah......The war resolution was permission to go to war as a last ditch effort.....not permission to go tearing across the ME killing all the people that made Daddy look like a buffoon. Nobody knew he had invasion plans ready 24 hours after 911.

$2 trillion would build a whole bunch of B-2 bombers, F-22s and aircraft carriers.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2006-01-11 08:15 AM | Reply

Spoken like true pants-wetting war monger. All bark, no bite. Par for the course with you though.

COMMONSENSE Here is something for You take it for what it is.

www.gnn.tv

Larry

That's not what I was doing. NuclearPenguin had said that only the people that voted for Bush should have to pay for the Iraq war. I was merely noting that if you voted for one of the many congressmen that also approved of the war, you are no better. After all, there have been other votes in the Senate to appropriate these massive amounts of funds to the war, and they have passed overwhelmingly. Furthermore, John Kerry said that he wouldn't pull the troops out from Iraq had he been elected, so the money would still be getting spent over there.

Posted by joe at 2006-01-11 12:05 PM | Reply

Kerry....Blah, Blah Blah...you uber-cons got the shit scared out of you by this man. I mean,if he was no threat,you would never mention his name. I'm glad he's such a thorn in your side. He my senator and we're damn proud of him. Sure,come back at me with "you're proud of a man who lost?".....Sure. I also know that while Kerry wouldnt have pulled the troops out, lets not forget the fact that had Kerry been elected, we would NEVER have gone to Iraq. Afghanistan? Sure, kill those terrorist fucks. Iraq? What a joke. Nothing more than way to steal the american people blind. Go on, laugh with smugness. You're going to be paying for it as well.

There has never been a better equipped, better armored army in the history of humanity than the US Army sent into Iraq. They did indeed have battle plans after the invasion. Multi-layered, multi-faceted plans. They didn't tell you what they were, but why should they?

I think its time to change your name to STOPTHEWORD_TWIST. I didn't say that we weren't better equipped than anyone else, I said we we underequipped for the situation. "Go with the army you have" ring a bell? Now we're finding out that the body armor some soldiers are using may degrade in heat... Now isn't that a bummer...

As far as a battle plan, you're right, I don't know the "battleplan." I only know what I see, hear, and read. Based on the way things are going as I can see, we haven't made much progress in the RPI (Rose Petal Index).

In short, the armour seems to do more harm than good. What good is armor if it causes a blown tire and grounds the vehicle during a fire-fight? I guess it speaks to 'going to war with the equipment we have'.

What's peculiar is that we never learn about this in the MSM when cries for more humvee armour are screeched.

Posted by jeffj at 2006-01-11 03:54 PM

Jeff, please stop using talking points. "The Libr00lz", by which we must mean the Pentagon, are talking about BODY armor, not humvee armor.

www.nytimes.com"www.nytimes.com/a>Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Support our troops: Impeach Bush NOW

Link to article was mangled:

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

80% could still be alive. That figure comes to around the same number of people who died on 9/11, doesn't it?

How many armored jackets can $2,000,000,000,000.00 buy, anyway?

What, and not leave money for a sackful of Krystals with cheese?

Are you high?

Nobody knew he had invasion plans ready 24 hours after 911.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2006-01-11 06:52 PM

I belive they DID know. I'm not throwing blame at anybody but DC isn't that big of a town as far as that goes. Everybody stood behind Bush at the start and I can't belive the democratic leadership didn't know more than they admit now. That they were "lied" to. They are too connected and smart to let that happen.

Obviously they are better off distancing themselves from Bush considering how things have gone.

I'll admit - I have nothing to source for this - just IMHO.

What, and not leave money for a sackful of Krystals with cheese?

Are you high?

Posted by niceville at 2006-01-11 09:28 PM | Reply

Yummmm Krystals with cheese. I used to eat either 24 of those lil suckers every night or a Large super supreme every night that I lived down in Clarksville Tennessee BOY Those were delicious.

Larry

Bush hurt his country with Iraq. It will takes us years to recover, as long as teh recovery from Vietnam, which remains ongoing.

Bush and bin Ladin arethisclose. Bin Ladin said he would destroy us financially and Bush is helping him every inch of the way to give away every cent in our Treasury and getting filthy rich off it himself with every second that passes. IMPEACH.

$2 trillion for a poorly planned, poorly executed war is a waste. Even if you thought the invasion of Iraq was a rational response to 9/11, no rational person could possibly support the costly and wasteful Dumsfeld Doctrine of Inadequate Force. Even true-believing viceroys like Bremer are now acknowledging that war-planning and execution were excrable.

Still a guilty pleasure Larry.

When they are hot. Better than Krispy Kremes and Popeyes Chicken combined.

Krystals beats the shit out of the White Castle Slyders Hands down. they actualy melt in Your mouth. They are so good.

Larry

Krystals beats the shit out of the White Castle Slyders Hands down. they actualy melt in Your mouth. They are so good.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2006-01-11 10:57 PM | Reply

Krystals make me shit a blue streak.

Was that too much information??

Commonsense oh they did me too. I was on the Royal Sir Thomas Crapper for a while afterwards but Small price to pay for the Taste.

Larry

$2 trillion is about one-quarter of the total national debt the federal government took more than 200 years to run up.

"chump change for democracy."
Niceville
"Cheap for theocracy. Especially if it is some other chump's change." Ayatollah Nicetent.

But I'm willing to bet Niceville would spend that much to get a theocracy here too!

Chimp change