Continous update on the current costs of the war on Iraq (
http://costofwar.com/).
As the site says: In April, 2003 an intergenerational team of Niko Matsakis of Boston, MA and Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, MD created costofwar.com. After maintaining it on their own for the first year, they gave it to the National Priorities Project to contribute to their ongoing educational efforts.
NPP's latest publication shows how the average household's tax dollars are spent for every state and 193 cities, towns and counties.
Instead [of going to war with Iraq], we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.
Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 56 years.
Hang on.. So these supporters of ours who praise the war on Iraq because it made life so much better for those inhabitants of the country are saying that we could instead have immunized every kid in the world the next half century?! Or fully funded anti-world hunger for half a decade?! And that wouldn't have taken a hundred thousand lives either, now would it?
Bush-kissers, explain yourselves, if you will.
Source:
Congressional Estimates (
http://www.costofwar.com/numbers.html)
These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake. And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better? Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more. If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.
Originally posted by The Hidden One
If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war. The only listed party in your post that has nuclear weapons is North Korea, and they don't seem willing to launch a full scale nuclear assault.
Originally posted by The Hidden One
These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake.
Want a Second opinion?
Clicky (
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/nationalsecurity/2003-03-21costofwar.htm)
Clicky (
http://www.sacobserver.com/news/commentary/070204/cost_of_war.shtml)
And all theese should inspere you.
Clicky (
http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+war&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N)
they all agree that it cost $100 billion - $200 Billion. that it will reach at least $200 billion by this year.
what would Kerry have done better?
He would have put people to work. he would have made decent paying jobs. then people would be able to buy more things and pay more taxes and the government would have got more money. remember when FDR was presedent, people were jumping out of windows becuase the lost everything in the stock market crash? he put people to work on parks to get the economy going. He got us out of the depression good enugh to survive WW II.
Same with today. if you want to boost the economy, $100,000 tax breaks to the rich and $300 tax breacks to the rest of us won't cut it. put people to work.
I wrote a reply and tried to submit it, but I got a database error, so I'm forced to re-write this whole thing:mad:.
And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better?
I'm sick of hearing that argument.
What if Kerry would've done equally bad? Does that make Bush's job better? Does it mean that whatever Bush does is necessarily right? Don't think so.
Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more
I assume you mean "go to war";)?
Hardly. Who would the Iraqis attack? Saudi-Arabia? Never mind that Saudi-Arabia contributed tens of million dollars and 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 (LA Times) and thus shouldn't be protected in the first place as they pose a bigger threat to America than Iraq ever could have, if you look at it from a "terrorism funding=danger" point of view.
Half of Iraq was a no-fly-zone patrolled by US airplanes. Iraq was bombed on a weekly basis from the first Gulf War up to the second one. The Iraqi army was decimated, primitive, and in poor repair (which was proven when the US invaded in Operation Iraqi "Freedom"). Saddam had to sleep in a different place every night out of fear of assassination. Fact it: He couldn't have invaded his own backyard, much less Saudi-Arabia or Turkey or another neighbouring country. And he certainly was no threat to "the entire world", contrary to what certain conservatives like(d) to believe.
In fact, it's an interesting contradiction that some of the same people who said we needed to invade Iraq due to it being such a threat scoffed at anti-war peoples' concerns of American losses by saying "heh, the Republican Army sucks, it'll surrender when it sees us".
Not to mention the UN contradiction: "The Iraqis broke UN Regulations by having WMDs, and yes, we can invade them for that as the USA's a sovereign nations and sovereign nations don't need to listen to foreigners or the UN!":D. Easily my favourite Republican contradiction.
I don' think Bush cared less about "the future of the world" when he invaded Iraq. If he cared about the safety of people in the world, he'd have spent money and resources on programs designed to prevent massacres and violence abroad and in the USA. He could've made life safer for a lot of people in the world without invading a nation and causing untold thousands of deaths.
If it was about fighting terrorism, he'd have done better in Afghanistan (what about not waiting two whole months and then sending only a very small force in?), and he'd certainly have done something about Saudi-Arabia. Granted, the House of Saud has a close, close, intimate friendship with the Bush family, but home land security should come first, should it not?
But of course, just about every argument against Operation Iraqi "Freedom" has been shot down in the "WMDs - Weapons of Mass Deception" thread, so I'm really just wasting my time here.
If Saddam or [U]sama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.
First of all, Saddam didn't even have nuclear weapons. And Kim Jong-Il and his party shows no sign of wanting to use their newly-acquired munitions. And Usama was nowhere near nuclear capability. So I don't know what you're getting at.
And he certainly was no threat to "the entire world", contrary to what certain conservatives like(d) to believe.
What are you talking about? Remember when he released VX Nerve Gas on his own people? Doesn't that say somehting to you?
First of all, Saddam didn't even have nuclear weapons. And Kim Jong-Il and his party shows no sign of wanting to use their newly-acquired munitions. And Usama was nowhere near nuclear capability. So I don't know what you're getting at.
You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?
Originally posted by The Hidden One
These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake. And let me ask you this, what would Kerry have done better? Bush was thinking about the world's future when he made the descision to go to more. If Saddam or Osama or North Korea aren't stopped we all know they would have starrted a catastrophic nuclear war.
Sure, we pretty much made sure Iraq will have no WMD's for a very long time. But in doing so, we proved that those countries which do have WMD's we'll not attack (Iran, North Korea) and that ultimately to be spared our wrath it'd be wise for countries to develop those nuclear weapons.
So yeah, we may have failed in that department...
You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?
Contary to popular belief, you need rather modern and large, static labs to produce an effective nuclear bomb. The best Osama could've done is make a dirty bomb or buy one from the black market (supposedly there's a few due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union.)
Here, let me help you understand something.
Speculation is not enough drive to wage war against another country.
Sure, Bush had evidence, but 1-2 years into the war, it was released that his evidence was inaccurate.
Gee, that seems like a waste... but wait, didn't he liberate thousands of Iraqis while at the same time increasing the standard of living for said Iraqis?
But wait... let's look at the process... thousands of innocents killed, terrorist insurgency raised *, cities in shambles...
Terrorist insurgency raised - This means that for every supposed terrorist Bush captures/kills/maims, he kills innocents in the process. Probably doesn't float well with the Iraqi people does it? After all, if a policeman has to shoot 12 other people to get 1, that doesn't seem right... It also inspires hatred towards U.S., the same hatred that drives terrorist agendas.
Cause think about it. They're killing innocents while killing terrorists. Wouldn't that make you hate America? Wouldn't that possibly drive someone to join the terrorists?
"Planting the seeds of terrorism" -----^
But continuing on the speculation aspect:
You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?
Let's say I have an ex-weapons warehouse/peanut butter factory run by Saddam. You ask to inspect it. I refuse. Does that automatically mean I store WMDS in there?
No.
It's MY peanut butter :(
Originally posted by The Hidden One
These facts don't even look accurate. The cost of war doesn't shoot that fast up for God's sake.
So I'm assuming you've done a cost analysis of the costs of war yourself? Or at least have a study done by a credible researcher who can prove otherwise?
Consider the fact that current Patriot Missles cost 2 - 3 million dollars EACH, and we fired how many in the very first days of the war?
I don't think that cost is unreasonable at all.
Originally posted by The Hidden One
You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs? The weapons in question are much too large to have been hidden as fast as people claim.
What are you talking about? Remember when he released VX Nerve Gas on his own people? Doesn't that say somehting to you?
That does not make him a "threat to the whole world". The US Government has killed untold thousands of innocents and overthrown several democracies on their own (Chile, 1973 being just one example). Does that make them a "threat to the whole world"?
I'm not denying that Saddam was evil. But that doesn't make him a threat to the whole world. Why would he hurt, say, Iceland, for example?
You actually believe he's not hiding nuclear weapons or nuclear material capable of being made into nuclear bombs?
1. If he had them, why didn't he use them to save himself when he was attacked? All you Republicans had been spending vast amounts of sweat, money, and time telling us he'd love nothing more than to wipe out the whole Western world with his infamous ghost WMDs.
2. If he has them, where the Heck are they now? These sites of yours that allegedly contained WMDs contained nothing of the sort when the Coalition reached them.
And what about all those sites the Iraqis, Iranians didn't let the UN inspectors investigate> WHat do you think there hiding there, kill Saddam pins?
And just how on Earth am I supposed to know? It just so happens that as neither you or I worked for the Baath party, neither of us know.
But it's pure speculation when you say there were WMDs in there.
The US Government has killed untold thousands of innocents and overthrown several democracies on their own (Chile, 1973 being just one example). Does that make them a "threat to the whole world"?Yep, pretty much.
You know, if i had WMDs the only real time i'd consider using them would be when my back was against the wall and i was about to die/be captured.
Yet oddly many people seem to believe that Saddam spent all that time and money developing WMDs just so that, when he really needed them, he could sneak them into a neighbouring country and hide them where they would be of no use to him whatsoever. And then hide in a hole.
It'd be like, if america invaded north korea, the koreans deciding to launch their nuclear weapons into space where the US couldn't find them and then hide in big cardboard boxes.... rather than, you know, actually using the weapons they had developed in defence. :confused:
---------
As for Iraq blocking weapons inspections - that is a fallacy. They only blocked about 5% of inspections, and those were all of presidential palaces/government offices. And the reason they gave for blocking those was that they thought the CIA had spys within the weapons inspection teams and was using them to spy on the iraqi regime.
And we now know that the CIA had spys in the weapons inspection teams and was using them to spy on the iraqi regime. So it turns out that
(a) the iraqis were right, and therefore justified in refusing admitance to the teams.
(b) the iraqis had better intelligence than we did (not that that is hard)
and
(c) by placing CIA operatives in a supposedly impartial UN team the US were the ones that undermined the UN's efforts to find a peaceful solution.
----
You know what... ending world hunger might have created a few less terrorists than killing a lot of innocent civilians too... but what do i know... :p
Yep, pretty much.
I should've known better than to ask those questions with Spider Al in residence:p.
It'd be like, if america invaded north korea, the koreans deciding to launch their nuclear weapons into space where the US couldn't find them and then hide in big cardboard boxes.... rather than, you know, actually using the weapons they had developed in defence.
Or like me carrying pepper spray (I don't, but whatever), which is against the law here in Norway, which means that when I think someone's stalking me to beat me up or rob me I hurriedly throw the spray canister away.
Does that really make any sense whatsoever to you?
You know what... ending world hunger might have created a few less terrorists than killing a lot of innocent civilians too.
Indeed. Right now 1,6 billion people can't have a glass of water a day. Quite a few thirsty people, no;)?
The Irony of all this is, is that Hitler , too claimed to "liberate" whatever contries he invaded. Used the viciosness of his enemies to justify his own.:laughing:
Don't use the Hitler card, Kipper;)
Nope, hardly the first time someone's scared the people into accepting a war. Hitler wasn't the first one either, you know.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
The Irony of all this is, is that Hitler , too claimed to "liberate" whatever contries he invaded. Used the viciosness of his enemies to justify his own.:laughing:
http://www.geocities.com/midgardeagle/TheHitlerCard.jpg)
Good job.
Next time, use a better than arguement than Hitler...
Originally posted by Mike Windu
http://www.geocities.com/midgardeagle/TheHitlerCard.jpg)
Good job.
Next time, use a better than arguement than Hitler...
what is so bad about it? What is so wrong wit the so called Hitler card. Would you prefer to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Kipper has a point.
I mean "pulling the hitler card" tends to mean equating something unrelated to nazism... to nazism. Like saying "vegetarianism is bad because hitler was vegetarian".
But saying "Someone invading foreign countries is like Hitler or the nazis invading foreign countries" is pretty applicable. I wouldn't call it "playing the Hitler card".
Originally posted by Spider AL
Kipper has a point.
I mean "pulling the hitler card" tends to mean equating something unrelated to nazism... to nazism. Like saying "vegetarianism is bad because hitler was vegetarian".
But saying "Someone invading foreign countries is like Hitler or the nazis invading foreign countries" is pretty applicable. I wouldn't call it "playing the Hitler card".
I would.
Pulling Hitler out to show how "evil" something may be = cardage
what is so bad about it? What is so wrong wit the so called Hitler card. Would you prefer to repeat the mistakes of the past?
It is bad when Hitler is used to justify any kind of action that one may deem "evil", "bad", etc.
And speaking of mistakes from the past...
Here is MORE food for thought.
Hitler was pro choice...
(read the most of the document before commenting.)
Remember that little gem? That's from the abortion thread.
Hitler loved his dog.
Food for thought.
Ah yes...:p
No country is stupid enough to actually nuke the US of A.
They'll know they'll be nuked to oblivion. The US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It has the ability to annihilate all life on Earth, but sure, let's nuke them and give them a reason to nuke us back.
Kim Jon Il is hardly stupid.
Kim Jon Il is hardly stupid.
I woudn't say that. There are some extremley crazy people out there. But your probaly right.
Originally posted by Mike Windu
And speaking of mistakes from the past...
Remember that little gem? That's from the abortion thread.
Ah yes...:p
That crap has nothing to do with the war in Iraq
That crap has nothing to do with the war in Iraq
But with the Hitler card, yes.
Can we get back on topic now, please?
I would.
Pulling Hitler out to show how "evil" something may be = cardageBut Hitler and the Nazis DID do some evil things, one of which was invading other nations.
To say: "Hitler was vegetarian so veggies are evil" in a debate on vegetarianism is "pulling the hitler card".
But to say: "This so-called police action is in many ways remeniscent of Hitler's annexing of the Sudetenland" is just... a comparison from history, and an applicable one at that. Not EVERYTHING to do with Hitler is "pulling the Hitler card".
Originally posted by Spider AL
But Hitler and the Nazis DID do some evil things, one of which was invading other nations.
To say: "Hitler was vegetarian so veggies are evil" in a debate on vegetarianism is "pulling the hitler card".
But to say: "This so-called police action is in many ways remeniscent of Hitler's annexing of the Sudetenland" is just... a comparison from history, and an applicable one at that. Not EVERYTHING to do with Hitler is "pulling the Hitler card".
You said It.
...but don't worry Spider. I just recieved Word That Bu$h's Approoval raing is down to %43 (I think I remember right) anyway. The lowest it's ever been. People are concerned about the skyrocketing gas prices and tha price of everything goin up. 'Bout time! Best news I heard in a long time!
Originally posted by
Origianlly posted by Dagobahn Eagle
But with the Hitler card, yes.
Oh Bother...
With all due respect, looks like Poohbear and Catface have no imagination.
Now back on topic. I feel sorry for the next president that has to repay all that debt.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Oh Bother...
With all due respect, looks like Poohbear and Catface have no imagination.
Now back on topic. I feel sorry for the next president that has to repay all that debt.
"I have more imagination in 1 tentacle than you two have in your entire bodies." ~ Squidward
But yeah, what does me not having imagination have to do with the war in Iraq? Or the Hitler card.
------------------
Kind of sad that we can hire around a million teachers for one year with this kind of money. I know schools need it.
Or we can give schools a higher budget. Because so many programs (music, athletics) are being cut from school proggies already.
The problem is people use the Hitler thing way too much. It's become rather annoying, even when used properly, which this is the first time I've seen it used properly. :p
The thing is it's just a cheap argument, even if it makes sense. It's just cheap and impersonal.
Oh Bother...
With all due respect, looks like Poohbear and Catface have no imagination.
She's got a name, you know. Call her "Mio" next time:mad:.
Dang insensitive frogs. Times were better when C'Jais the panda was here:p...
Now back on topic. I feel sorry for the next president that has to repay all that debt.
Indeed. If he is. Maybe he'll leave the huge national debt to the next one, who'll leave it to the next one, and so on.
Bah, we're agreeing too much here. Where did all the Bush-supporters go when we need them?
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Bah, we're agreeing too much here. Where did all the Bush-supporters go when we need them?
Maybie when their arguments quickly become invalid, they withdraw becuase they have no reasonable foundation for their argument.
Bah, we're agreeing too much here. Where did all the Bush-supporters go when we need them?
Right Here.
You know things could actually help the econcomy if certain bills could get passed the Congress without the Dempcrats filibustering everything.
And they say they want to help the economy but they won't let it happen. I just don't understand it....
And those bills would be...?
It appears that the Democrats wish to destroy the govenment and stop justice in America.
Such an amazingly unbiased article.
What's better is the comments of third graders that follow.
Democrats continued to threaten to shutdown the U.S. Government if there fillibustering of U.S. Federal Appeals court nominees is overriden.
It's "their", not "there"! If you're going to write senseless propaganda and present it as "serious articles", at least fix your grammar.
It appears that the Democrats wish to destroy the govenment and stop justice in America.
By drilling for oil in Antarctica? Don't tell the anarchists it's that easy, or they'll wipe out NYC and Washington DC by turning Alaska into a piece of Swiss Cheese:rolleyes: !
The other article has a point, though. But the fact remains that Bush is ruining the economy that Clinton fought so hard to build up.
"It appears that the Democrats wish to destroy the govenment and stop justice in America."
...
PAHAHA!
You know, there are times when I'm almost glad we share the planet with neoconservatives. They do provide SOME amusement, after all...
Sorry... :eyeraise:
There isn't enough oil IN the artic refuge to sustain America's thirst for gasoline for a month.
If you want to cut our dependance on oil, fund Hybrid cars to make them cheaper. buils electric monorail transits so people would would have alternitive transportation .
If you want to help the economy, put people to work with decent wages so they can buy stuff and pay more taxes. If people can't make enough money to live on, people can't buy, people can't sustain the economy. $300 tax breaks won't help.
Originally posted by Tyrion
or buy one from the black market (supposedly there's a few due to the collaspe of the Soviet Union.)
He'd still need an accelerator to produce tritium for the arming. Assuming, of course, that he wasn't going to make fireworks in a hurry. Or rely on a swift supply of an unstable substance when he wanted it to blow.
Kind of sad that we can hire around a million teachers for one year with this kind of money. I know schools need it.
Hell, we could repair Hubble. Or even relaunch the SCSC project. Or put a (wo)man on Mars. Or build a research station there.
Who's for it? Who's against it? Credit card companies, who have grown rich from their increasingly revolting loan shark-like tactics, don't want to pay the price of their reliance on these obscene methods. They want the ability to engage in any kind of shady marketing they can, eagerly promoting the virtues of almost unlimited debt to people they know to be unsound risks, but when the loans don't pay off they don't want to suffer the consequences. Credit card companies are among the primary backers of the bankruptcy bill, which is largely designed to shield them from taking responsibility for their own loan portfolios.
Conversely, practically every consumer group in the country is against the bill.
Bottom line: you don't need to understand all the intricacies of bankruptcy law to know what to think of this bill. Through their actions, its sponsors have made it abundantly plain that abuse of the system isn't their real aim: protection of major campaign contributors is. The poor get shafted, the very real crisis of medical bankruptcy is ignored, the rich are allowed loopholes that let them off the hook, and credit card companies can continue on their merry way knowing they won't have to pay the price for their own folly.
Welcome to America.
Interesting. Was that one of dubya's bills again?
(...) Or even relaunch the SCSC project. Or put a (wo)man on Mars. Or build a research station there.
All waste of money in my eyes. It will serve to increase prestige and so on, sure. However, prestige doesn't increase the living standars of a nation, so the trip to Mars that Dubya has planned, for example, is just a White Elephant that won't help the nation in any way whatsoever (sure, we'll learn stuff and blah, blah, blah, but that won't benefit us. It won't make John Doe better off like more hospitals, teachers, better roads, fire departments or street lighting does).
Privatize NASA already. It's bad enough that the USA spent $100 billion+ on ISS if we aren't going to spend $400 billion more on another white elephant.
You could say that I'm against it just because I'm not American. The problem with that is that even if the Norwegian government was planning to go to Mars, attaching a $400 billion (provided the Norwegian State had that kind of money]), I'd be against it. I'd be immensely proud of my country's achievements, but I wouldn't be carried away too much to realize that there is such a thing as priorities.
Maybie Bu$h wants to get more oil from mars!:D
Imagine the cost of the pipeline.
Gosh. Voting against drilling for oil in alaska. What evil b*****ds! Have they no heart??????
Surely even republicans can see that there are valid reasons to vote against that idea... even if on balance you come to the conclusion that the pros outweigh the cons.
Whatever you decide its only a temporary solution at best, thought the possible damage might be nearly permanent.
Seems to me to be like taking out another credit card so you can keep on spending... rather than trying to budget properly so you don't need another one. But then I AM trying to destroy the govenment and stop justice in America. :D
As for the second article... i'll admit i understand little of the detail... and don't know enogh about politics in america to recognise the names involved... but the impression i got was that this was a republican bill, that the article was saying it was a rotten bill only designed to screw the little guy, that people tried to add sensible amendments and the republicans blocked them.
Did i read that completely wrong? Or did The Hidden One post teh wrong article? :confused:
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
All waste of money in my eyes.
[...]
(sure, we'll learn stuff and blah, blah, blah, but that won't benefit us.
I disagree. Take CERN as an example. While critics might argue that CERN has an unjustifyably vast budget compared to the direct impact of the research being carried out there (let's face it pals, nobody gives a damn about the gluon's spin), the spin-off effects have been considerable.
One particularily noteworthy example is the field of superconductivity, a branch of technology and engineering which CERN can claim considerable credit for commercialising.
Linkage (
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4624/17/2/301/ptv17i2p56.pdf)
Or take the Apollo program, which was launched (bad pun, I know) solely for the spin-off effects.
Privatize NASA already. It's bad enough that the USA spent $100 billion+ on ISS if we aren't going to spend $400 billion more on another white elephant.
While I agree that NASA has been spoiled by vast budgets to such a degree that they have become sloppy with their cost/benefit analysis protocols, I hardly think that privatisation is the solution.
We definitely need a slimmer NASA with less burocrats, fatcats and politicians on every level, with a considerably sharper definition of its objectives and a severe budget cut, but to sever the governmental involvement in the space exploration and exploitation program would be folly.
Things like Hubble and MIR would never have been possible if the space sector had been privately controlled.